California Homebuilding Foundation
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 942581819
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2014–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Sacramento, CA, USA
- Phone
- 9163403340
- Rating
- 72
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Scholarships, Student Financial Aid Services, Awards
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $1,820,261
- Expenses
- $1,701,804
- Assets
- $13,578,705
- Liabilities
- $249,110
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
34 people listed
Highest reported compensation
- Terri Brunson (Executive Dir.): $173,755 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 promote the homebuilding industry through scholarship, research, education and professional recognition.
What it reported doing in 2024
RESEARCHAs Californias primary grant funding source for housing policy and affordability research, the California Homebuilding Foundation is a crucial player in this field. Our funding enables timely analysis and data-driven research to support policymakers, experts, and advocates in addressing the states housing affordability challenges and inequities. Through strategic initiatives, we work to ensure affordable, sustainable homes and communities across California.The Foundations research department includes the Construction Industry Research Board (CIRB), which offers valuable services such as real-time permit analysis and detailed property reports. These resources provide essential insights to help you stay competitive and anticipate industry trends.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 67% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 72% for direct work, and 28% for grants.
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 fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 67
- Transparency & Controls: 64
- Accountability: 90
- Sustainability: 64
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 72.6%; rating input score 73
- Program expense ratio: 68.4%; rating input score 68
- Fundraising efficiency: $8.05 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 87.5%; rating input score 88; 3rd 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: 89.6%; rating input score 90; 38th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Other executive compensation review process: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Fail
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 6.5%; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 7.98; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 10.2%; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 1.8% per year; rating input score 100; 25th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 2.6% per year; rating input score 100; 28th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 6.9% per year; rating input score 100; 47th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 72.6% of revenue deployed · 68.4% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 33 of 33 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $1.2M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $174K · 34 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 35 of 37 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
- Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 10 filing years from 2014 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 2 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.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 31/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
- Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 54/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 36/100.
- 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.