Roxbury Tenants of Harvard
Legal name: Rth Mission Park Realty Corporation
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 463458076
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2017–2025
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025
- Location
- Boston, Massachusetts, US
- Phone
- (617) 232-4306
- Rating
- 76
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Single Organization Support
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $68,289,371
- Expenses
- $39,970,776
- Assets
- $309,085,740
- Liabilities
- $34,804,118
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
10 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- DANIEL POWELL (PRESIDENT)
Highest reported compensation
- KAREN T GATELY (EXECUTIVE DI): $317,899 total reported compensation
- DONNA DESMOND (CFO): $273,424 total reported compensation
- STEPHEN FULTON (SR. PROGRARM): $207,571 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
RTH Mission Park Realty Corporation, through its operations as Roxbury Tenants of Harvard, is committed to providing affordable housing and supportive services that enhance the quality of life for residents and the broader Mission Hill community.
What it reported doing in 2025
The corporation, through its consolidated subsidiaries mission park limited partnership and rth holdings llc, owns and operates mission park, a 775- unit multifamily rental housing development in mission hill, boston, Massachusetts, and a multifamily rental housing development at 26-28 st. Albans road, boston, Massachusetts. Providing housing predominantly affordable to low- and moderate-income households; approximately 90% of units are set aside for low-income occupants under an extended use housing agreement pursuant to section 42. Includes a 12,352,769 distribution to roxbury tenants of harvard association, inc. To fund resident services and related charitable programs for mission park and nearby rth properties.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 91% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 66% for direct work, and 34% for grants.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and some related-organization disclosures are missing.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 66
- Transparency & Controls: 82
- Accountability: 77
- Sustainability: 86
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 64.4%; rating input score 64
- Program expense ratio: 91.4%; rating input score 91
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
- Compensation committee: Pass
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Pass
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Scored; rating input score 0
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 65th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 4 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 44
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: Fail
- 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: 41.5%; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 7.73; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.11; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0.5%; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 22.9% per year; rating input score 100; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 12.7% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 12.5% per year; rating input score 100; 79th 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: 64.4% of revenue deployed · 91.4% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 4 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $36.5M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $318K · 10 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $4.3M reported
- Consistency: 32 of 32 current checks pass
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes grants, executive pay, and related organizations
- Filing history: 8 filing years from 2017 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
- Related organizations: 5 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.
- Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 9 not reported.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Related-party transparency scored 0/100.