Home For A Home

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
274463661
IRS 990 coverage
2017–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2016
Location
Palm Springs, CA, USA
Phone
4153220560
Rating
54
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Housing Development, Construction, Management

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$207,933
Expenses
$281,457
Assets
$194,108
Liabilities
$706

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

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Josh Le (President)

People named in this filing

  • Robert Page (Secretary)
  • Victoria Schultz (Secretary)
  • Josh Le (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

To provide adequate housing for low-income people.

What it reported doing in 2025

Home For A Home continued supporting the construction of safe, secure homes for families in Guatemala. Many of the families served had been living in homes made from cardboard, corn stalks, scrap metal, or similar temporary materials, often with dirt floors and limited security. These homes are replaced with reinforced concrete block homes with concrete floors, locking doors and windows. Each funded project also supports local Guatemalan laborers through paid construction work. In 2025, Home For A Home funded 36 homes/projects, including 34 through From Houses to Homes and 2 pilot home projects. Of these, 12 were funded near year-end and may not have been completed by December 31, 2025. Based on available 2025 impact reporting, completed projects directly impacted 87 family members, including 18 men, 22 women, and 47 children. Total program service expense was approximately $114,376.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 92% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and revenue has grown recently. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and a relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 52
  • Transparency & Controls: 81
  • Accountability: 24
  • Sustainability: 26
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 54%; rating input score 54
  • Program expense ratio: 40.6%; rating input score 41
  • Fundraising efficiency: $45.05 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 85.7%; rating input score 86; 3rd 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: 0%; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 57
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -35.4%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.69; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -1.6% per year; rating input score 0; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2.3% per year; rating input score 100; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 11.4% per year; rating input score 100; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 54% of revenue deployed · 40.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 3 board members independent · 4 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $114K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 26 of 27 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2017 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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 — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 54/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 41/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 6/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 32/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 46/100.