Housing Action Council Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
132846967
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Tarrytown, NY, USA
Phone
9143324144
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Housing Development, Construction, Management

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,827,898
Expenses
$1,096,194
Assets
$44,915,289
Liabilities
$13,344,734

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ROSEMARIE NOONAN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR & SECRETARY)
  • CAROLYN R SENN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • ROSEMARIE NOONAN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR & SECRETARY): $171,596 total reported compensation
  • CAROLYN R SENN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $63,750 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Housing action council's mission is to increase and improve housing opportunities for low- and moderate- income households and special needs populations, including the homeless, elderly and disabled individuals throughout the hudson valley region and surrounding counties.

What it reported doing in 2024

Affirmative marketinghac continued as marketing consultant for the county of westchester for developments in the pipeline and for the city of new rochelle during 2023. Hac marketed several county-funded affordable housing developments in accordance with westchester county housing development affirmative fair housing marketing plan requirements and in new rochelle in accordance with the city's affordable housing program. Hac prepares affirmative marketing plans, markets the affordable units, including outreach to people least likely to apply, conducts lotteries, maintains waiting lists, and in some cases qualifies the applicants for occupancy and handles recertifications. In 2023, hac conducted the initial marketing of approximately 225 units in westchester.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 67% for direct work, and 33% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. Program spending has declined or grown slowly and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 65
  • Transparency & Controls: 89
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 75
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 63.2%; rating input score 63
  • Program expense ratio: 89.4%; rating input score 89
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.1%; rating input score 94; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 76th 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: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • 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: 40%; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 40.97; rating input score 99; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.3; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 21.5%; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -6.8% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.4% per year; rating input score 100; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 17.1% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 63.2% of revenue deployed · 89.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $980K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $172K · 11 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $275K reported
  • Consistency: 32 of 33 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 59 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 — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Whistleblower policy not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 13/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 25/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.