Chhaya Community Development Corporation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
113580935
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Jackson Heights, NY, USA
Phone
7184783848
Rating
69
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Legal Services

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$7,305,406
Expenses
$3,594,695
Assets
$14,940,630
Liabilities
$4,800,107

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

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ANNETTA SEECHARRAN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • ANNETTA SEECHARRAN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $281,242 total reported compensation
  • THERESA THANJAN (DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATION): $141,479 total reported compensation
  • KAREN KAMINSKY DIRECTOR OF (DEVELOPMENT AND COMMUNICATIONS): $125,236 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Chhaya community development corporation chhaya was founded in 2000 incorporated in 2001 to advocate for the housing needs of New York citys south asian origin communities. Chhayas mission is to build the power, housing stability, and economic well-being of south asian and indo-carribean communities in New York city.

What it reported doing in 2025

Housing justice aims at protecting, preserving, and promoting affordable housing in New York citys low-to-moderate-income neighborhoods. Chhaya provides direct service counseling to first-time home buyers and tenants requiring support. Chhaya organizes community members to support advocacy efforts to protect, preserve and promote affordable housing in New York city.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 67% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
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 - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 52
  • Transparency & Controls: 70
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 71
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 37.5%; rating input score 37
  • Program expense ratio: 75.1%; rating input score 75
  • Fundraising efficiency: $20.67 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • 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; 63rd 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: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 50.8%; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.16; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.32; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 16.9%; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 10.8% per year; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 14.2% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 22.9% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 37.5% of revenue deployed · 75.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $2.7M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $281K · 13 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $302K reported
  • Consistency: 32 of 32 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 37/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 19/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 25/100.