Charities Housing Development Corp of Santa Clara County

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
770359848
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
San Jose, CA, USA
Phone
4085508301
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Low-Income & Subsidized Rental Housing

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$14,335,869
Expenses
$12,980,829
Assets
$199,554,247
Liabilities
$115,971,249

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

19 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MARK MIKL (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • DON TAYLOR (PRESIDENT)
  • KATHLEEN ROBINSON (DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • DON TAYLOR (PRESIDENT): $352,000 total reported compensation
  • MARK MIKL (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $299,120 total reported compensation
  • LISA CALDWELL (ASST. SECRETARY/DIR. OF PR): $284,489 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To develop, preserve, & manage high quality affordable housing for low-income individuals & their families. Through service enhanced property management & structured resident involvement, chdc contributes to the highest standards of human dignity & participation.

What it reported doing in 2025

The organization is currently managing 1,199 publicly assisted housing properties (1,037 directly managed) available to extremely low and moderate-income households. Through service-enhanced property management and structured resident involvement, chdc contributes to the highest standards of human dignity and participation in our community.1,897 persons were served during the year.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 72% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 99% 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. Expenses are high relative to revenue and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 62
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Accountability: 81
  • Sustainability: 56
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 64.3%; rating input score 64
  • Program expense ratio: 78.1%; rating input score 78
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 86.4%; rating input score 86; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 75%; rating input score 75; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • 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: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 9.5%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 15.37; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.58; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 21%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 13.9% per year; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.3% per year; rating input score 100; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 15.1% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 64.3% of revenue deployed · 78.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 8 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $10.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $352K · 19 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $1.8M reported
  • Consistency: 32 of 33 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, executive pay, and related organizations
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2009 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 15 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 31 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 56/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Form 990 shared with the board not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 5/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 21/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.