Homes for America Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 521901220
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2013–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Annapolis, MD, USA
- Phone
- 4102691222
- Rating
- 71
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Housing Development, Construction, Management
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $15,747,373
- Expenses
- $5,152,548
- Assets
- $50,047,130
- Liabilities
- $7,627,497
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
21 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- DANA JOHNSON (PRESIDENT & CEO)
- JOLLY BURKS (VICE PRESIDENT & CFO)
- W ANDREW HANSON (VICE PRESIDENT)
- DANIELLE ENGLAND (VICE PRESIDENT, PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT)
Highest reported compensation
- DANA JOHNSON (PRESIDENT & CEO): $287,750 total reported compensation
- JOLLY BURKS (VICE PRESIDENT & CFO): $249,307 total reported compensation
- W ANDREW HANSON (VICE PRESIDENT): $230,354 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Homes for america, inc. Was incorporated for the purpose of developing and preserving housing for low and moderate income households and special needs populations.
What it reported doing in 2024
See schedule ohomes for america carried out its mission by serving 7,316 low income persons in its rental communities. The average income of households in communities that are age restricted to seniors 62 years and older was $24,449. The average income of households in general occupancy housing was $27,716.homes for america development activities included the following: 1. Continued rehabilitation of a 154 unit family property, in baltimore, Maryland. 2. Fully leased a 163 unit new construction senior property in oxon hill, Maryland. 3. Received 9% tax credit award for the renovation of a 50 unit property in bridgeville, Delaware. 4. Received 9% tax credit award for a 60 unit new construction project in glen burnie, Maryland.homes for america also provided asset management services for 66 communities in the organization's portfolio; the organization performs regular site inspections, monitors insurance policies and closely tracks all financial and operating aspects of its properties during lease up and operations. Key asset management accomplishments during the year included: 1. Continued the practice of making the portfolio more energy efficient and executed grant agreements for energy conservation improvements for three properties. 2. Refinanced two properties, one in salisbury, md and one in annapolis, Maryland, lowering the interest rate and providing funds to improve the property. 3. Sold three homes to community residents of an original 56 unit lease purchase property in annapolis, Maryland leaving 34 units remaining.the focus for resident services for fy 2025 was to continue to engage residents in on-site programming in the areas of health and wellness, nutritional services, socialization, education, financial assistance, community connectivity, digital access, and safety and security. Health and wellness programming has continued including mobile health and vaccination clinics, exercise classes, and mental health workshops. Nutritional services are provided in the form of on-site food pantries, monthly food donations, mobile grocery delivery, and community meals. Homes for america has continued to increase access to free high-speed broadband internet for residents in 3 additional communities totaling 228 units. Safety and security were enhanced across the portfolio by increasing and updating camera systems, security patrols, and enhanced partnerships with local police departments. Programming for youth was prioritized with after school programming, on and off-site summer camps, and homework clubs. In addition, we enhanced partnerships with local social service agencies to provide case management to two communities.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 78% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 69% for direct work, and 31% for grants.
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 reported officer compensation is a large share of total spending, which may reflect staffing concentration.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 44
- Transparency & Controls: 80
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 80
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 26.9%; rating input score 27
- Program expense ratio: 87.1%; rating input score 87
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 99.6%; rating input score 100; 35th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 9 of 9 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: Pass
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 67.3%; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 9.71; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.15; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 31.1%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 0.9% per year; rating input score 100; 14th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 4.2% per year; rating input score 100; 37th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 5.3% per year; rating input score 100; 38th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 26.9% of revenue deployed · 87.1% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $4.5M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $288K · 21 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 36 of 36 current checks pass
- Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, executive pay, and related organizations
- Filing history: 12 filing years from 2013 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 17 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 92 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 27/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 1/100.