Stone House

Legal name: Roxbury Stone House Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
510192418
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Roxbury, MA, US
Phone
617-427-9801
Rating
80
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Family Violence Shelters

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$4,384,552
Expenses
$4,215,233
Assets
$8,432,518
Liabilities
$461,586

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

Leadership & pay

18 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ROSA LICEA-MAILLOUX (PRESIDENT)
  • KATHRYN FAGAN (INERIM CEO/COO)

Highest reported compensation

  • KATHRYN FAGAN (INERIM CEO/COO): $155,046 total reported compensation
  • SHELIA GRAHAM (DIR OF EARLY LEARNING): $114,542 total reported compensation
  • GINA VARAMO (CHIEF DEVELOPMENT OFFICER): $104,021 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Stone House provides shelter, housing, and support services to survivors of domestic violence and their families, helping them achieve safety and stability.

What it reported doing in 2024

The roxbury stone house provides a range of bi-lingual (english/spanish) and culturally diverse residential and non-residential resources to meet the needs of those afflicted with mental illness, domestic violence and trauma. Programs include emergency shelter, community based services, housing stabilization/supportive housing, hotline, fully licensed child care facility and other domestic violence programs.

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 94% 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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 70
  • Transparency & Controls: 84
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 52
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 74.3%; rating input score 74
  • Program expense ratio: 76.8%; rating input score 77
  • Fundraising efficiency: $7.54 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • 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: 3.9%; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.05; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 11.3%; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 10.3% per year; rating input score 100; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8.2% per year; rating input score 100; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 11.8% per year; rating input score 100; 65th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 5 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 74.3% of revenue deployed · 76.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $3.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $155K · 18 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $155K reported
  • Consistency: 32 of 33 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 28/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 47/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 26/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.