Psch 78Th Street Ozone Park Housing Development Fund Corporation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
043618973
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
New Hyde Park, NY, USA
Phone
7185590516
Rating
68
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Residential Care & Adult Day Programs

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$123,282
Expenses
$126,731
Assets
$727,923
Liabilities
$1,247,574

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

2 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • LORI A ALAMEDA (SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT/CFO)
  • SHERRY TUCKER (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • SHERRY TUCKER (CEO): $521,918 total reported compensation
  • LORI A ALAMEDA (SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT/CFO): $337,005 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The corporation is formed exclusively to develop a housing project in order to provide housing facilities for developmentally disabled persons of low income.

What it reported doing in 2024

The corporation acquired and modified a municipally aided project located in the county of queens, New York city. It provides a total of 7 individuals with housing facilities and services specifically designed to meet their physical, social and psychological needs. These services enable the recipients to lead a happier and healthier lifestyle and better face the challenges of daily life in a secure and nurturing environment.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 100% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 89
  • Transparency & Controls: 64
  • Accountability: 37
  • Sustainability: 41
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -2.8%; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 5.74; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 1.71; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 33.5%; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 2.1% per year; rating input score 100; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6.6% per year; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -1.9% per year; rating input score 0; 18th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 2 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $127K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $522K · 2 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 21 of 21 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2016 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Related organizations: 21 filed related-organization links
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
  • People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 33/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: CEO compensation review process not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 3/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 9/100.