Friends of Housing Corporation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
391915741
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2019
Forms available
Form 990 2019
Location
Milwaukee, WI, USA
Phone
4144633371
Rating
68
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Housing Support

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$975,034
Expenses
$1,085,444
Assets
$2,932,892
Liabilities
$1,177,992

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2019. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • NACARCI FEASTER (President)
  • CHRISTOPHER GOLLER (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • L'TANYA MCNEAL (Executive Dir.): $34,327 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2019. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Friends of Housing Corporation develops high quality housing and provides innovation housing management that generates economic opportunity

What it reported doing in 2019

Provides premier property management services for over 2100 rental units owned by the Housing Authority City of Milwaukee and over 100 units of non-city owned rental units including multi units and single-family homes. Most rental units are in low to moderate income areas in need of quality affordable housing. Preference is given to residents of those areas for employment opportunities and contractual services for maintaining the properties. Friends of Housing also serves as an advisor and partner with the Housing Authority City of Milwaukee on certain projects that require a nonprofit entity involvement. The organization also provides property management and technical assistance to other government funded organizations that provide housing.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 100% 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 a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 43
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 39
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 49.9%; rating input score 50
  • Program expense ratio: 44.8%; rating input score 45
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -11.3%; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.7; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.4; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 3.2%; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 5.2% per year; rating input score 100; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6.5% per year; rating input score 100; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 2.2% per year; rating input score 100; 36th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 49.9% of revenue deployed · 44.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 4 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $487K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $34K · 5 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed
  • Consistency: 29 of 29 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2010 to 2019
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 50/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 45/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 15/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 24/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.