Corporation for Supportive Housing
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 133600232
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- New York, NY, USA
- Phone
- 2129862966
- Rating
- 80
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Low-Income & Subsidized Rental Housing
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $106,263,944
- Expenses
- $61,884,473
- Assets
- $389,766,055
- Liabilities
- $257,546,259
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
24 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- DEBORAH DE SANTIS (PRESIDENT & CEO)
- ELIZABETH DRAPA (VICE PRESIDENT OF CONSULTING AND FIELD OPS)
- RYAN MOSER (VICE PRESIDENT OF STRATEGY AND IMPACT)
Highest reported compensation
- DEBORAH DE SANTIS (PRESIDENT & CEO): $569,490 total reported compensation
- BRIGITT JANDREAU (CHIEF LOAN OFFICER): $460,367 total reported compensation
- EILEEN HAWES (CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER): $375,649 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
See schedule oto advance housing solutions that deliver three powerful outcomes: 1) improved lives for vulnerable people, 2) maximized public resources and 3) strong, healthy communities across the country.
What it reported doing in 2024
See schedule ocsh advances supportive housing through the delivery of our four core services: 1) training and education to build capacity to create and operate high-quality supportive housing 2) grants and lending through low interest loans with flexible underwriting terms to cover predevelopment costs and fill gaps in development budgets for new supportive housing 3) consulting and technical assistance for project sponsors to develop strong plans for new supportive housing rooted in evidence based practices; 4) policy reform through collaboration with local, county and state agencies to streamline resources & programs for supportive housing. Since inception, csh's lending, advocacy and technical assistance have helped communities create supportive housing units. In 2024 alone, cshapproved 54 loans totaling $220.5m and offered hundreds of on-line andseveral in-person training events that reached thousands of participantsacross the country.
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 77% for direct work, and 23% for grants.
The verdict
STRONG - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of total spending goes to programs. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and reported officer compensation is a large share of total spending, which may reflect staffing concentration.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 62
- Transparency & Controls: 92
- Accountability: 96
- Sustainability: 75
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 48.2%; rating input score 48
- Program expense ratio: 81.8%; rating input score 82
- Fundraising efficiency: $51.31 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 21st percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 6 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 100
- Compensation committee: Pass
- Independent consultant: Pass
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
- Written employment contract: Pass
- Compensation survey or study: Pass
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 98.2%; rating input score 98; 34th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 94.1%; rating input score 94; 45th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
- 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: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 41.8%; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 6.3; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.66; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 5%; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 7.2% per year; rating input score 100; 58th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 10.6% per year; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 10.5% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 48.2% of revenue deployed · 81.8% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 16 of 17 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $50.6M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $569K · 24 people listed · 6 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $1.1M reported
- Consistency: 34 of 35 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 13 filing years from 2010 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 48 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 67 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.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 48/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 17/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 24/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.