Alameda Point Collaborative

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
943361464
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Alameda, CA, USA
Phone
5108987838
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Homeless Centers

Reported finances

Revenue
$25,771,103
Expenses
$5,650,194
Assets
$54,564,035
Liabilities
$11,255,312

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

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DOUG BIGGS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (TO 12/24))
  • ANDREA URTON (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (FROM 12/24))

Highest reported compensation

  • DOUG BIGGS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (TO 12/24)): $131,814 total reported compensation
  • SUZANNE MARTIN (DIRECTOR OF FUND DEVELOPMENT): $120,786 total reported compensation
  • CHOUA THAO (DIRECTOR OF HUMAN RESOURCES): $114,760 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Apc is working to end homelessness by providing housing and supportive services to create communities in which formerly homeless families and individuals can flourish.

What it reported doing in 2024

Property management - property management is responsible for leasing up and managing all of the residential and commercial properties belonging to and managed by apc. This includes 128 permanent supportive housing units designated for homeless families and individuals and conveyed to apc through a legally binding agreement; 56 permanent supportive housing units designated for survivors of domestic violence conveyed to building futures through a legally binding agreement, and several commercial leases with the alameda food bank, american red cross, and makers farm.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 94% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
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 - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 53
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 83
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 22%; rating input score 22
  • Program expense ratio: 94.4%; rating input score 94
  • Fundraising efficiency: $82.91 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd 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; 66th 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: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 78.1%; rating input score 98; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 9.66; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.21; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 8.4%; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 5.4% per year; rating input score 100; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 13% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 14.6% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 22% of revenue deployed · 94.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 5 filed program accomplishments · $5.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $132K · 15 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 4 contractors listed · $877K reported
  • Consistency: 33 of 33 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 filed money-flow records
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 22/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Audit committee oversight not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 27/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 58/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.