Housing Development Consortium of Seattle - King County

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
943073588
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Seattle, WA, USA
Phone
2066829541
Rating
63
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Housing Development, Construction, Management

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,807,493
Expenses
$1,732,026
Assets
$1,578,816
Liabilities
$454,970

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

23 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • KATE SMITH (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • PATIENCE MALABA (EXECUTIVE DI): $212,003 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Promote the long-term availability of affordable housing to low-income persons.

What it reported doing in 2025

The housing development consortium serves, convenes, and advocates on behalf of mission-driven organizations and businesses that comprise our membership of over 215 organizations, weaving a powerful network across sectors and industries that responds to the diverse needs of our community-from homelessness prevention to affordable homeownership. Hdc hosts/sponsors workshops, seminars, affinity/working groups, programs, webinars and a variety of forums for members to learn industry best practices, development techniques and skills, and facilitate member organizations sharing ideas, reflect on lessons learned and explore opportunities to better serve the community.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 71% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 61
  • Transparency & Controls: 61
  • Accountability: 69
  • Sustainability: 38
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 62.9%; rating input score 63
  • Program expense ratio: 65.2%; rating input score 65
  • Fundraising efficiency: $10.96 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • 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: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 4.2%; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.91; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.29; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 12.2%; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 6.6% per year; rating input score 100; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8.9% per year; rating input score 100; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7.2% per year; rating input score 100; 45th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 62.9% of revenue deployed · 65.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 20 of 20 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $1.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $212K · 23 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 27 of 27 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 38/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 42/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 40/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 20/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 31/100.