Healthy Neighborhoods Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
300272104
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Baltimore, MD, USA
Phone
4103320387
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Community, Neighborhood Development

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,223,959
Expenses
$3,608,321
Assets
$11,408,607
Liabilities
$10,091,488

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

Leadership & pay

22 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ROBERT PIPIK (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • ROBERT PIPIK (PRESIDENT): $171,519 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 help baltimore communities forge strong connections among neighbors to market their communities, increase home values and create high standards for property improvement. Using its capacity to attract and invest public and private capital, hni has improved neighborhoods throughout baltimore city.

What it reported doing in 2024

Baltimore city and the state of Maryland call on healthy neighborhoods to manage the investment of public funds to support community development in city neighborhoods. The examples are the one mile radius funds ("omr")and the baltimore regional neighborhoods initiative ("brni"). Omr funds derive from a tax on video lottery ("slots") machines to be used to improve neighborhoods within one mile of pimlico race course. Each year the city grants to hni a sum of money which hni regrants to neighborhood based nonprofits. The projects are verydiverse: little league athletics, renovation of an abandoned movie theater into a community arts center, homeless services, housing development. To date $4.2 million has been invested. The brni program is another state community development program for which hni is the administrator.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 72% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 60% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. The filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 93
  • Transparency & Controls: 61
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 35
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 91.5%; rating input score 91
  • Fundraising efficiency: $27.65 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 21.5%; rating input score 21; 13th 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: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • 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: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -11.9%; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.16; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.88; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.8%; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -12.6% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -9.1% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -2.1% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 91.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 22 of 22 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $3.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $172K · 22 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 33 of 34 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 11 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 10 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: Grant itemization coverage scored 21/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 11/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 8/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 55/100.