Catholic Housing Corporation of Northern Berks County C/o Holy Family Senior

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
232325706
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Bethlehem, PA, USA
Phone
6108656245
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Low-Income & Subsidized Rental Housing
Affiliation
Christianity

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$624,139
Expenses
$510,710
Assets
$1,024,540
Liabilities
$1,381,647

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

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Joseph A Shadid (Chief Executive Officer)

Highest reported compensation

  • Joseph A Shadid (Chief Executive Officer): $195,927 total reported compensation
  • MICHAEL HENEGHAN (Chief Fin. officer (Thru. 6/24): $120,655 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Catholic housing corporation of northern berks county is committed to providing the best possible low income independent living housing under the hud section 8 program in order to provide exceptional physical, emotional, social, and spiritual care to the elderly. The organization is also committed to meeting the needs of the elderly with respect, dignity, and compassion.

What it reported doing in 2024

Catholic housing corporation of northern berks county operates a section 8, low income, elderly housing project located in laureldale, Pennsylvania. There are 30 one bedroom and 15 efficiency apartments. The organization maintains high resident satisfaction as measured by high occupancy and low turnover; supports "aging in place" with programs to help seniors remain independent as long as possible; improves operations with training of all management staff in fair housing certification; strengthens quality of life programs with increased outreach to community organizations; improves food security for residents by partnering each of the eight communities with access to food banks and develops a strategy to meet the growing need for affordable housing for seniors with limited income.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 97% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
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 most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and assets have declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 71
  • Transparency & Controls: 60
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 60
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 74.4%; rating input score 74
  • Program expense ratio: 90.9%; rating input score 91
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 18.2%; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.01; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 1.35; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 7.6%; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 1.1% per year; rating input score 100; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.5% per year; rating input score 100; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -1.6% per year; rating input score 0; 13th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 74.4% of revenue deployed · 90.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $464K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $196K · 14 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 27 of 27 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Related organizations: 9 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.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 4/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 45/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.