Gay & Lesbian Elder Housing Corporation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
352160631
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2012
Forms available
Form 990 2012
Location
Los Angeles, CA, USA
Phone
3239937618
Rating confidence
Limited
Sector
Senior Citizens' Housing/Retirement Communities

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$325,034
Expenses
$352,473
Assets
$1,622,098
Liabilities
$14,457

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2012. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2012. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Dedicated to building and operating high-quality affordable, multicultural housing developments which include community spaces used to provide social and recreational services for lgbt older adults. Provide a safe and nurturing environment supporting their well-being.

What it reported doing in 2012

Provide low-income affordable housing and subsidies for the elder glbt community in need and provide recreational and wellness programs.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 84% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

- The available evidence is not sufficient to produce an overall rating for this filing. This is not a warning sign.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: NotEnoughData
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Accountability: 88
  • Sustainability: 50
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: Limited
  • Program expense ratio: Limited
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • 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: 5 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 71
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -8.4%; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.6; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 13.5% per year; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -0.9% per year; rating input score 0; 40th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $279K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 22 of 22 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2011 to 2012
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.

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 — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 24/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.