Redeemer Village Ii

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
222282223
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2023
Forms available
Form 990 2023
Location
Huntingdon Valley, PA, USA
Phone
2159387855
Rating
56
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Low-Income & Subsidized Rental Housing

Reported finances

Revenue
$108
Expenses
$8,814
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MICHAEL B LAIGN UNTIL 0324 (BOARD MEMBER, PRESIDENT/CE)

Highest reported compensation

  • DONALD F FRIEL UNTIL 0324 (TREASURER): $723,264 total reported compensation
  • MICHAEL B LAIGN UNTIL 0324 (BOARD MEMBER, PRESIDENT/CE): $665,108 total reported compensation
  • THOMAS HARRIS UNTIL 0324 (SENIOR VP, GENERAL COUNSEL): $487,761 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

In conjunction with redeemer village i, redeemer village ii provides managerial oversight for hud-subsidized rental housing to low income elderly, who are 62 and above, and/or disabled individuals, who meet hud income requirements.

What it reported doing in 2023

In conjunction with redeemer village i, redeemer village ii provides managerial oversight for low income elderly/disabled rental housing units. All activites stopped march 2024 due to dissolution of entity.

Operating model

Revenue model
Investment-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from recurring investment income.
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

MIXED - 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: 69
  • Transparency & Controls: 60
  • Accountability: 32
  • Sustainability: 2
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 38.6%; rating input score 39
  • Fundraising efficiency: $0 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -8,061.1%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 2,421.6%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 6.7% per year; rating input score 100; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 10% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -13.7% per year; rating input score 0; 11th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 38.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 6 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $3K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $723K · 15 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 11 of 11 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2011 to 2023
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 7 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 44 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 — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 39/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 4/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 2/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 3/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 1/100.