Quincy Geneva Housing Corporation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
222506604
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2017
Forms available
Form 990 2017
Location
Dorchester, MA, USA
Phone
6174425711
Rating
68
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Housing Development, Construction, Management

Reported finances

Revenue
$549,276
Expenses
$738,052
Assets
$2,660,413
Liabilities
$120,717

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • STREVEN GODFREY (PRESIDENT CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • STREVEN GODFREY (PRESIDENT CEO): $129,126 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Qghc is a Massachusetts non-profit corporation, which primarily provides for neighborhood development with citizen involvement and for decent, affordable housing of displaced of inadequately residents of the dorchester/roxbury urban renewal area of the city of boston. Qghc receives funding through state and private agencies. Qghc also operates youth and social programs for residents of the same area as mentioned above. Qghc also uses the names quincy geneva housing development corporation and new vision cdc.

What it reported doing in 2017

The majority of qghc's services are provided to quincy-area residents. The following program divisions are listed in order of relative importance based on total program expenditures: community support - this division reaches into the community to serve children and families in need of support and assistance. The types of services include, but are not limited to , resident services, support and counseling for girls, computer training and tutorial services and support and role models to children.community economic development - this division reaches into the community, with citizen involvement, to provide for affordable housing for qualified individuals and to provide for commercial development of the dorchester/mattapan urban renewal area of boston.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 95% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program 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 - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of total spending goes to programs and the required major-donor schedule is missing or incomplete.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 56
  • Transparency & Controls: 83
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 34
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 70.1%; rating input score 70
  • Program expense ratio: 52.2%; rating input score 52
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: No; rating input score 0
  • Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • 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: -34.4%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.6; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.05; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 17.5%; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -5.1% per year; rating input score 0; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -1% per year; rating input score 0; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7.4% per year; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 70.1% of revenue deployed · 52.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $385K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $129K · 9 people listed
  • Consistency: 28 of 28 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2009 to 2017
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 9 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 52/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Major donor itemization scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 4/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 16/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.