Homeless Leadership Alliance of Pinellas

Legal name: Homeless Leadership Alliance of Pinellas Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
592935116
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
St. Petersburg, FL, US
Phone
727-933-0100
Rating
88
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,402,262
Expenses
$3,343,027
Assets
$668,230
Liabilities
$221,170

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DAISY COREA (CEO (3/28/2024-10/31/2024))
  • AARON M SWIFT (INTERIM CEO (12/11/2024-3/4/2025))
  • CHERI HOLZBACHER (INTERIM CEO (3/6/2025-9/30/2025))

Highest reported compensation

  • DAISY COREA (CEO (3/28/2024-10/31/2024)): $82,227 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Homeless Leadership Alliance of Pinellas, Inc. (HLA) leads the Pinellas Continuum of Care to prevent and end homelessness.

What it reported doing in 2024

Since 1988, the hla has served as the continuum of care (coc) lead agency & since 2017 is the lead agency for homeless management information system (hmis). The hla serves as the lead entity in homeless services to identify needs & gaps & strategically aligns resources to best meet local needs. We convene stakeholders for policy settings & problem solving for local governments & funders & provide system-wide accountability through a monitoring process to determine if services are effective & efficient. We conduct an annual count & maintain the inventory of beds & services. Using this data, we implement strategies that can reduce the number of people coming into the homeless system, such as diversion/prevention, & implement the coordinated entry system to ensure those re-housed are the most vulnerable.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 90% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 60% for direct work, and 40% for grants.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 82
  • Transparency & Controls: 94
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 33
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 91.9%; rating input score 92
  • Program expense ratio: 93.5%; rating input score 94
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd 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: 1.7%; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.2; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.33; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 2.5%; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 14.9% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 15.2% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 14.2% per year; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 6 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 91.9% of revenue deployed · 93.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $3.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $82K · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 30 of 30 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2012 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 2 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.

  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 40/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 6/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 32/100.