Housing Opportunities Commission — Community Partners
Legal name: Housing Opportunities Community Partners Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 522149054
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2012–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2017
- Location
- Kensington, MD, United States
- Phone
- 240-627-9730
- Rating
- 75
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Single Organization Support
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $355,159
- Expenses
- $234,141
- Assets
- $692,482
- Liabilities
- $27,611
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
9 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- CHELSEA ANDREWS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- CHELSEA ANDREWS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $411,482 total reported compensation
- TIMOTHY GOETZINGER (CFO): $289,733 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 Mission of the Housing Opportunities Community Partners (HOCP) is to provide services that strengthen housing stability and increase the self-sufficiency of low- and moderate-income families and individuals living in Montgomery County’s affordable housing so that: No one has unmet needs that threaten their housing stability; Adults and children have the to
What it reported doing in 2024
Assist the housing opportunities commission of montgomery county (hoc) in encouraging self-sufficiency of its affordable housiung residents, implementing programs and plans to assist in the achievement of this goal, providing services, volunteer assistance, coordination, management and administration as requested by hoc in these areas. Foster and receive donations of equipment, materials, supplies and other goods for the benefit of residents of hoc to assist in breaking the cycle of poverty for economically disadvantaged families.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 84% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 79% for direct work, and 21% for grants.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
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: 69
- Transparency & Controls: 71
- Accountability: 91
- Sustainability: 65
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 66.1%; rating input score 66
- Program expense ratio: 96.3%; rating input score 96
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 80th 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 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Fail
- 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: 34.1%; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.96; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.04; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 45.2%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 3.7% per year; rating input score 100; 48th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 2.2% per year; rating input score 100; 36th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 11% per year; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 1 operating location identified
- Where the money goes: 66.1% of revenue deployed · 96.3% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $226K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $411K · 9 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 24 of 24 current checks pass
- Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 11 filing years from 2012 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
- 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 5/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 34/100.