Color Country Community Housing Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
870617908
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2014
Forms available
Form 990 2014
Location
St George, UT, USA
Phone
4356736156
Rating
61
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Housing Development, Construction, Management

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$535,886
Expenses
$318,387
Assets
$10,033,610
Liabilities
$3,913,288

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • C TY TIPPETS (EXECUTIVE DI): $68,707 total reported compensation
  • TRACY DUTSON (EXECUTIVE DI): $68,433 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Ccchi is dedicated to elevating the quality of life for individuals and families within the tri-state area of Utah, Nevada, and Arizona by developing rural affordable housing opportunities and assessing and improving the affordable housing needs of each individual community.

What it reported doing in 2014

Single-family development this program encompasses both new construction and rehabilitation of homes. Ccchi purchases foreclosed properties, rehabilitates and then sells them to low or moderate income home buyers. This process has been facilitated through the Utah center for affordable housing, (ucah). Ucah received funding through the neighborhood stabilization plan (nsp) and in turn provides this capital to non-profit organizations in the form of low-interest loans for the purpose of purchase and rehabilitation of these foreclosed properties. The program is still young and just starting to gain traction. Multi-family development multi-family development is a key program in fulfilling the mission of ccchi. Affordable rental housing that is attractive and well maintained is vital in the housing continuum from homelessness to permanent housing. Ccchi believes that housing can be beautiful as well as affordable and seeks to make all our projects attractive, livable, safe and affordable.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 91% 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 - 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: 40
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 69
  • Sustainability: 76
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 36.1%; rating input score 36
  • Program expense ratio: 59.7%; rating input score 60
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 40.6%; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 31.51; rating input score 98; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.39; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 43.1%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -81.1% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -39.3% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -5.6% per year; rating input score 0; 16th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 36.1% of revenue deployed · 59.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $190K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $69K · 9 people listed
  • Consistency: 25 of 25 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2010 to 2014
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 10 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 36/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 2/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 27/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.