Hartford Community Loan Fund Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
061423598
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
Location
Hartford, CT, USA
Phone
8602967005
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Chambers of Commerce & Business Leagues

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,862,097
Expenses
$1,768,590
Assets
$24,714,062
Liabilities
$14,515,211

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

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ANNA EMANUEL (PRESIDENT)
  • MICHAEL B HAYNES (CEO EFFECTIVE 7.8.24)
  • REX FOWLER (FORMER CEO THRU 7.7.24)

Highest reported compensation

  • REX FOWLER (FORMER CEO THRU 7.7.24): $123,409 total reported compensation
  • MICHAEL B HAYNES (CEO EFFECTIVE 7.8.24): $83,430 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 and promote just and affordable financial services that benefit low-wealth residents of the communities served by hclf.

What it reported doing in 2024

Lending - hartford community loan fund (hclf) provides acquisition and rehab financing to facilitate the renovation of blighted and underutilized residential and mixed use properties throughout Connecticut. Through this program, hclf seeks to both reduce blight and increase the stock of affordable housing available for low income residents in the communities served by hclf. Hclf-financed projects also create and retain jobs in the community.hclf continues to service loans originated under a commercial loan program which was discontinued prior to fiscal year ending june 30, 2015.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 66
  • Transparency & Controls: 64
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 56
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 75.1%; rating input score 75
  • Program expense ratio: 74.4%; rating input score 74
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • 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: Fail
    • 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: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 5%; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 13.97; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.59; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 11.7%; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 6.6% per year; rating input score 100; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8.4% per year; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 9.5% per year; rating input score 100; 57th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 75.1% of revenue deployed · 74.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $1.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $123K · 13 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 29 of 30 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 50/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Whistleblower policy not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 13/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 31/100.