South End Lower Roxbury Open Space Land Trust

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
042610775
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2011
Forms available
Form 990 2011
Location
Boston, MA, USA
Phone
6174370999
Rating confidence
Limited
Sector
Temporary Housing

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$101,666
Expenses
$104,543
Assets
$955,200
Liabilities
$132

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2011. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

18 people listed

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2011. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To improve community gardening throughout the historic district of the south end of boston

What it reported doing in 2011

To acquire own improve and maintain open space for community gardening and pocket parks in the south end and lower roxbury neighborhoods of boston for the public benefit in perpetuity

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

- The available evidence is not sufficient to produce an overall rating for this filing. This is not a warning sign.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: NotEnoughData
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 60
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: Limited
  • Program expense ratio: Limited
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 87.5%; rating input score 88; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -2.8%; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 9.14; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 25.1% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 15.5% per year; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
  • Governance: 432 of 18 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $92K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 18 people listed
  • Consistency: 13 of 14 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2010 to 2011
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.

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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Independent members within voting members did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 36/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.