Good Shepherd Housing Corporation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
203170750
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2007
Location
Fostoria, OH, USA
Phone
4199371801
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Low-Income & Subsidized Rental Housing

Reported finances

Revenue
$196,317
Expenses
$229,483
Assets
$1,072,148
Liabilities
$1,377,816

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CHRISTOPHER P WIDMAN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • CHRISTOPHER P WIDMAN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $307,490 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To provide independent residential living facilities to elderly individuals who are of low income.

What it reported doing in 2024

To utilize a $1,311,700 capital advance grant and ongoing operating support from the u.s. Department of housing and urban development ("hud") under hud's section 202 program to provide independent residential living facilities to elderly individuals who are of low income. The activities to be undertaken in pursuit of this purpose will primarily include the ownership, construction, development and operation of a one-story, woodframed housing for the elderly project containing fourteen (14) one-bedroom apartment units, including common hallway, kitchenette, lobby and laundry areas. The project, to be wholly-owned and developed by good shepherd housing corporation, will be part of an approximate 30-acre nursing-home/assisted-living campus located in fostoria, seneca county, Ohio and commonly known as the good shepherd home.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 89% 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. Expenses are high relative to revenue and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 59
  • Transparency & Controls: 84
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 33
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 70.2%; rating input score 70
  • Program expense ratio: 61.2%; rating input score 61
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • 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: 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: 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: Fail
    • 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: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -16.9%; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.67; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 1.29; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 23.5%; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 2.3% per year; rating input score 100; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5.7% per year; rating input score 100; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -2.4% per year; rating input score 0; 16th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 70.2% of revenue deployed · 61.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $140K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $307K · 12 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 24 of 24 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 3 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.

  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 16/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: CEO compensation review process not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 4/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 16/100.