Renaissance Gardens Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 453946594
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2012–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2011
- Location
- Baltimore, MD, USA
- Phone
- 4105005311
- Rating
- 76
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Low-Income & Subsidized Rental Housing
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $642,348
- Expenses
- $842,171
- Assets
- $6,675,650
- Liabilities
- $751,871
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
7 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- WENDI REDFERN-CURTIS (VICE PRESIDENT)
- LISA BUDLOW (PRESIDENT)
Highest reported compensation
- LISA BUDLOW (PRESIDENT): $280,422 total reported compensation
- TIFFANY NICOLETTE (SECRETARY): $177,960 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To provide elderly or disabled persons with housing facilities and services specially designed to meet their physical, social, and psychological needs, and to promote their health, security, happiness, and usefulness in longer living.
What it reported doing in 2024
Renaissance gardens operates a 60-unit elderly housing project located in baltimore, Maryland. The organization provides rental of subsidized and below market housing to low-income, elderly, and disabled individuals. The project is operated under section 202 of the capital advance program of the national housing act and regulations defined by the department of housing and urban development (hud).
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- 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. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 87
- Transparency & Controls: 65
- Accountability: 86
- Sustainability: 41
- Growth: 40
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
- Program expense ratio: 95.2%; rating input score 95
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
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: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 6 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 67
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -31.1%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 7.93; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.11; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 3.1%; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 5.3% per year; rating input score 100; 44th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -19% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -0.4% per year; rating input score 0; 16th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 95.2% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $802K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $280K · 7 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 26 of 26 current checks pass
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
- Filing history: 13 filing years from 2012 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Related organizations: 2 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.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 9 not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 6/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 41/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 57/100.
- High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.