Holy Name Housing Corporation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
470653390
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Omaha, NE, USA
Phone
4024536100
Rating
69
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$7,152,500
Expenses
$2,960,622
Assets
$31,313,624
Liabilities
$13,535,646

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

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DANIEL BOLER (PRESIDENT)
  • RYAN BOYD (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • MATTHEW CAVANAUGH (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • MATTHEW CAVANAUGH (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $138,714 total reported compensation
  • CORY JENSEN (CONSTRUCTION MANAGER): $131,559 total reported compensation
  • ELAINE LEIBERT (CFO): $105,997 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Holy name housing corporation (hnhc) is a community housing development organization (chdo) in omaha, ne. Hnhc is a unique organization - a "one stop shop." hnhc is owner/general partner, construction contractor, developer, manager and supportive services provider for our housing developments.hnhc's primary goal is to revitalize omaha and surrounding community neighborhoods by constructing new homes on vacant lots and renovating substandard properties. Hnhc offers a rent to own program that provides supportive services to prepare low to moderate income families in purchasing housing that is affordable and sustainable. The program offers tenants an affordable place to live, an escrow account as part of each month's rent and supportive services. These services include: individualized case management and education on the basics of budgeting, credit, mortgage lending and maintenance.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 71% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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: 33
  • Transparency & Controls: 94
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 76
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 27.7%; rating input score 28
  • Program expense ratio: 53.4%; rating input score 53
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 17th 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: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 58.6%; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 10.58; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.43; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 16.2%; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 2% per year; rating input score 100; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.9% per year; rating input score 100; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 17.1% per year; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 27.7% of revenue deployed · 53.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.6M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $139K · 13 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $1.7M reported
  • Consistency: 29 of 30 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2014 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 11 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 28/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 53/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 17/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 25/100.