Alliance for Housing Oakland County Continuum of Care

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
461549875
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2013
Location
Pontiac, MI, USA
Phone
2482211854
Rating
81
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Housing Development, Construction, Management

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,120,166
Expenses
$2,120,030
Assets
$333,131
Liabilities
$291,685

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

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JENNY POMA (PRESIDENT)
  • LEAH McCALL (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • KIRSTEN ELLIOT (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • LEAH McCALL (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $119,997 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The corporation is organized to establish a collective response that addresses homelessness and affordable housing in our community.

What it reported doing in 2024

Grant fiduciary is responsible for execution of grant documents for the community allocation; assure use of funds is in accordance with the agreement; produce billings; ensure timely expenditures of funds; conduct monitoring and financial review of sub-grantees (minumum 10% of tenant files if applicable); maintain records to support billings. Sub-grantees are responsible for administration of all financial assistance dollars for prevention and rehousing; practice shelter diversion; embrace rapid rehousing; provide services and/or make referrals to other service agencies; submit quarterly progress reports.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 100% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 69% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

STRONG - 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 expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 83
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 23
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 92.8%; rating input score 93
  • Program expense ratio: 92.8%; rating input score 93
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 83.3%; rating input score 83; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 98.7%; rating input score 99; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 0%; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.16; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.88; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5.7%; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 17% per year; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 17.1% per year; rating input score 100; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 10.5% per year; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 92.8% of revenue deployed · 92.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $120K · 13 people listed
  • Consistency: 23 of 25 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2014 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 8 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 7 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.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 33/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 4/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 8/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 49/100.