Housing Assistance Council

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
520939288
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
2028428600
Rating
86
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Housing Support

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$12,080,098
Expenses
$14,737,609
Assets
$81,065,745
Liabilities
$38,682,284

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

Leadership & pay

29 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DAVID LIPSETZ (PRESIDENT & CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • DAVID LIPSETZ (PRESIDENT & CEO): $410,247 total reported compensation
  • SIMON PETER KABOGOZA (ASST. TREAS./DIR. FIN. & ADMIN): $239,896 total reported compensation
  • JONATHAN HARWITZ (SECRETARY/DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC POLICY): $231,975 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The exempt purpose is to improve housing conditions for the rural poor, with emphasis on the poorest of the poor in the most rural places. Housing assistance council (hac) provides below-market financing for affordable housing and community development, technical assistance and training, research and information, and policy formulation to enable solutions for rural communities.

What it reported doing in 2024

Policy - responds as an independent and non-partisan organization to congressional committees, member offices, federal agencies, and policy advocacy coalition with the research and information needed to make informed policy descision. Through our research work, rural data portal, and veterans data central all provide valuable, educational context to frame the rural policy conversation.

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 89% 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.

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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 90
  • Transparency & Controls: 83
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 32
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 81.5%; rating input score 82
  • Fundraising efficiency: $24.76 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 85.7%; rating input score 86; 1st 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: 88.7%; rating input score 89; 19th 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; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -22%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 5.5; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.48; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 12.6%; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 3.8% per year; rating input score 100; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 9.1% per year; rating input score 100; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6.1% per year; rating input score 100; 43rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 81.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 18 of 18 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $12M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $410K · 29 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $1.5M reported
  • Consistency: 33 of 35 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2014 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 63 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 51 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 — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 4/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 13/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 30/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.