Homes for Families

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
262932191
IRS 990 coverage
2017–2023
Forms available
Form 990 2023, Form 990-EZ 2016
Location
Woodland Hills, CA, USA
Phone
8188848808
Rating
89
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Housing, Shelter N.E.C.

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$7,309,455
Expenses
$7,659,636
Assets
$14,388,580
Liabilities
$11,247,644

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

21 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DONNA DEUTCHMAN (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER)

Highest reported compensation

  • DONNA DEUTCHMAN (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER): $320,696 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Homes 4 families' mission is to build resiliency, economic growth, neighborhoods, and homes for veterans and their families.

What it reported doing in 2023

Homes 4 families empowers low-income veterans and their families to enter the middle class through affordable, full-equity homeownershipcombined with holistic services that build resiliency, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. Through the outcome-proven veteran enriched neighborhood (r) model, homes 4 families provides service members, veterans, and their families with comprehensive wrap-around services that equip them to succeed in civilian life, including financial education, therapeutic workshops, trauma-informed programs, and veteran-to-veteran support. Through continuous quality improvement and ongoing outcome research. This model is both proven, expanding, and improved on an ongoing basis in response to emerging veteran needs and economic changes.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 94
  • Transparency & Controls: 81
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 36
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 96.6%; rating input score 97
  • Fundraising efficiency: $16.72 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • 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; 64th 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: -4.8%; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.88; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.78; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.2%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 5.9% per year; rating input score 100; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 13.9% per year; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 19.8% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 96.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 20 of 20 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $7.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $321K · 21 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $215K reported
  • Consistency: 27 of 28 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2017 to 2023
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 54/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 22/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 11/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 58/100.