CFH Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
541121171
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Manassas, VA, USA
Phone
7032214510
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Community, Neighborhood Development

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,570,947
Expenses
$1,582,481
Assets
$6,093,625
Liabilities
$4,030,470

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

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Luis Castillo (President)
  • Harvey Plante (Vice President)
  • George Davies (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • George Davies (Executive Director): $158,768 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

CFH empowers individuals and families to successfully create a sustainable home in which they can achieve their goals and allow their children to build their dreams and reach their potentials.

What it reported doing in 2024

Healthy LivingIn the year ended June 30, 2023 CFH began the Dr. Melanie Rochon Bush Senior Emergency Assistance Program in Fairfax county, and a smaller program in Prince William County. The Fairfax county program is funded by the Fairfax consolidated funding pool and the Prince William program is funded through various funding sources and contributions. The program is intended to intervene, when possible, with those at risk of becoming homeless or having their sustainable housing threatened by financial emergencies. It is our intention to serve seniors over 62 and adults with disabilities with this program. This population tends to live on a fixed income (i.e., a social security check) which often makes them financially vulnerable. Due to age, illness, or disabilities they are unable to seek employment to help improve their financial wellbeing. By assisting when they are facing a financial crisis, we would likely help them avoid eviction and stabilize the household. We currently provide assistance for past due rent, utilities, and medical bills in Fairfax county and a smaller program in Prince William county.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 57% for direct work, and 43% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

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: 73
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 45
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 77.2%; rating input score 77
  • Program expense ratio: 76.2%; rating input score 76
  • Fundraising efficiency: $12.23 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings

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: 100%; rating input score 100; 76th 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: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -0.7%; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.85; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.66; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 10%; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -2% per year; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2.2% per year; rating input score 100; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6.6% per year; rating input score 100; 46th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 77.2% of revenue deployed · 76.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $1.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $159K · 9 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 35 of 35 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2012 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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 44/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 33/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 11/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 37/100.