Credit & Homeownership Empowerment Services

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
273693233
IRS 990 coverage
2021–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-N 2012
Location
Kansas City, MO, USA
Phone
8165337417
Rating
83
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Financial Counseling

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,483,870
Expenses
$2,514,419
Assets
$5,841,417
Liabilities
$1,058,030

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Coley Williams (President)
  • Ron Farmer (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Coley Williams (President): $177,000 total reported compensation
  • Ron Farmer (Vice President): $177,000 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Dedicated to empowering low to moderate income individuals and families with the knowledge skills and confidence necessary for long-term financial & homeownership success.

What it reported doing in 2025

Porter House KC is an established program of the organization in operation for over five years providing business education mentorship training and incubator services to minority entrepreneurs and small business owners in underserved urban core neighborhoods of Kansas City. During 2025 the program expanded significantly in scope and activity with total program expenses of 318,477. Beginning in 2025 the organization is separately reporting Porter House KC as a distinct program service on Form 990 Part III Line 4b to reflect its growth and the increased materiality of program activities. The program directly supports the organizations mission by building economic capacity within the same communities served by CHESs HUD-approved housing counseling activities.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 95% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 65% for direct work, and 35% for grants.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Program spending has declined or grown slowly and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 82
  • Transparency & Controls: 88
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 63
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 69.6%; rating input score 70
  • Program expense ratio: 96.4%; rating input score 96
  • Fundraising efficiency: $694.31 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • 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: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 27.8%; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.32; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.18; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 14.1%; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -0.1% per year; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 0.2% per year; rating input score 100; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -6.3% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 69.6% of revenue deployed · 96.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $2.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $177K · 5 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 42 of 43 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2021 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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.

  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 24/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 37/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.