Heartland Coalition

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
330792600
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
San Diego, CA, USA
Rating
65
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Federated Giving Programs

Reported finances

Revenue
$103,208
Expenses
$104,090
Assets
$210,882
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MARK HANSON (PRESIDENT)
  • GENNY CRANE (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • GEORGE BROWN (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • DAN BECHTEL (VICE PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • MARK HANSON (PRESIDENT)
  • GENNY CRANE (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • GEORGE BROWN (VICE PRESIDENT)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Serve low-income residents with projects in the areas of career and community development, housing, healthcare, environmental protection and clean energy, education and public art

What it reported doing in 2025

Heartland expanded operations to Utah and is certified in every county in Utah as well as California. Heartland received an Outstanding Achievement Award from the South Bay Workforce Investment Board for placing 87% of our pre-apprenticeship graduates into high-paying construction jobs in Los Angeles County. The other 13% were placed in hospitality, landscaping, or building maintenance in Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Riverside, and San Diego Counties. Utah graduates of the Heartland Coalition Carpentry and Construction Pre-apprenticeship Program were placed in Union Apprenticeships as well as directly into jobs with Sci Fi Networks, Tuff Shed, Grid Alternatives, Da Bella Windows and Doors, or similar types of companies 100% of the time.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 73% 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: 50
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 76
  • Sustainability: 50
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 56.5%; rating input score 57
  • Program expense ratio: 56%; rating input score 56
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 43
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: -0.9%; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.03; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -2.7% per year; rating input score 0; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -12.7% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -20.2% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 56.5% of revenue deployed · 56% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $58K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 21 of 21 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 57/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 56/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 33/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 59/100.