Baltimore Affordable Housing Development Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
471204443
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Baltimore, MD, USA
Phone
4103963370
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Housing Development, Construction, Management

Reported finances

Revenue
$15,994,584
Expenses
$14,746,053
Assets
$309,477,267
Liabilities
$5,910,284

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JANET ABRAHAMS (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER)
  • MICHAEL MOORE (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • JANET ABRAHAMS (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER): $479,159 total reported compensation
  • MICHAEL MOORE (PRESIDENT): $249,296 total reported compensation
  • MONICA WATKINS (DIRECTOR): $248,972 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To own, operate, and take steps necessary or convenient to develop or otherwise undertake housing projects in the area of operation of the housing authority of baltimore city; to enhance the supply of quality affordable housing in baltimore city; to lessen the burdens of government, and to engage in any other activities which are not inconsistent with section 501c3 of the internal revenue code and applicable state law.

What it reported doing in 2024

Facilitates perkins, somerset, oldtown (pso) development project with multiple phases utilizing habc, baltimore city, and the state of Maryland funds, choice neighborhood initiative (cni), capital funds and mtw reserves.

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 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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 75
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 77
  • Sustainability: 78
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 82.3%; rating input score 82
  • Program expense ratio: 88.7%; rating input score 89
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • 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: 4 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 44
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 7.8%; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 20.99; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 1.7%; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 25% per year; rating input score 100; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -7.6% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8.9% per year; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 82.3% of revenue deployed · 88.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 4 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $13.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $479K · 8 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 21 of 21 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2016 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Related organizations: 6 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.

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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.