Housing and Community Services Of

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
541711347
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2011
Forms available
Form 990 2011
Location
Springfield, VA, USA
Phone
7033725440
Rating confidence
Limited
Sector
Housing, Shelter N.E.C.

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$285,634
Expenses
$232,352
Assets
$100,559
Liabilities
$44,616

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2011. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2011. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To provide housing related and other community services and advocate the need for affordable, decent and accessible housing to improve the quality of life and promoe self-sufficiency for households in need.

What it reported doing in 2011

This long term intensive case management program guides families through their crises, providing expertise as the families work toward self-sufficiency. Also provides short term assistance to families in need.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

- The available evidence is not sufficient to produce an overall rating for this filing. This is not a warning sign.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: NotEnoughData
  • Transparency & Controls: 69
  • Accountability: 69
  • Sustainability: 51
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: Limited
  • Program expense ratio: Limited
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 0%; rating input score 0; 16th 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 18.7%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.43; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.44; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 14.2%; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $207K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $33K · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 28 of 29 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 24/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 19/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 30/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.