Christian Relief Services Charities Inc Group Return

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
911937903
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Alexandria, VA, USA
Phone
7033179086
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Low-Income & Subsidized Rental Housing
Affiliation
Christianity

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$30,469,552
Expenses
$25,170,870
Assets
$140,345,872
Liabilities
$116,735,090

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

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • BRYAN L KRIZEK (PRESIDENT/CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • BRYAN L KRIZEK (PRESIDENT/CEO): $464,687 total reported compensation
  • PAUL E KRIZEK ESQ (VP/GENERAL COUNSEL): $324,588 total reported compensation
  • BIEU DO (CFO): $171,489 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 provide and directly manage affordable housing to very low and moderate-income persons; supportive permanent housing for chronically mentally ill adults; and housing for homeless families and individuals.

What it reported doing in 2024

Housing and related services 2,169 units of affordable services in Arizona, Kansas, Florida, and Virginia are provided to very low- and moderate-income person, and veteran supporting housing(see schedule o for continuation)housing program portfolio: brentwood apartments, wichita, ks: mixed income population in 196 units of low and moderate income families (continued on schedule o).terry lynn, phoenix, az: consists of 10 units of very low and moderate-income housing.casa castillo, phoenix, az: 15-unit 2 bedroom project of which 3 units are for persons earning less than 65% of amifountain place i and ii apartments, peoria, az: 164-unit townhouse development rented to families and individuals who primarily earn less than 80% of ami. 20% of units are rented to families earning less than 50% of the ami.the melrose apartments, triangle, va: 370 units of very low and moderate-income housing in a Virginia suburb of the Washington d.c. Metropolitan area.country village apartments, peoria, az 118 units of low and moderate-income housing in peoria.somerset place apartments, tucson, az: 160 units serving low to-moderate income families in tucson.skyline apartments, wichita, Kansas: 82 units of low and moderate-income housing in wichita.garden pines, wichita, Kansas: 95 units of low and moderate-income housing in wichita.brookmont (formerly countryside) apartments, richmond, va: 60 units serving low to moderate-income families in richmond.petersburg apartments, petersburg, va: 188 units serving low to moderate-income families in petersburg.six palms/casa paradise: 70 units serving low to moderate-income families.florence apartments, florence, Arizona: 84 units serving low to moderate - income families in florence.christian relief services of Virginia (crs of va) also owns and operates 112 units scattered throughout fairfax, arlington, and prince williams counties, Virginia, which serve low income, veterans, and indigent chronically mentally disabled and dual diagnosed individuals with permanent supportive housing in partnership with other local non-profit organziations, and the fairfax, falls church community services board and new hope housing. We are also manage "a new generations" group home for recovering mothers receiving up to nine months of residential treatment.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 99% 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. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 82
  • Transparency & Controls: 68
  • Accountability: 86
  • Sustainability: 74
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 88.2%; rating input score 88
  • Program expense ratio: 99.1%; rating input score 99
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd 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; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: 17.4%; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 5.58; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.83; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 1.1%; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -5.2% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -3.4% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 1.2% per year; rating input score 100; 14th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 88.2% of revenue deployed · 99.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 11 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $24.9M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $465K · 15 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $1.4M reported
  • Consistency: 31 of 31 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2020 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 8 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.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 13/100.