Housing Opportunities Made Equal of Virginia Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
237303018
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Richmond, VA, USA
Phone
8043540641
Rating
84
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Housing Expense Reduction Support

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$5,989,221
Expenses
$5,531,330
Assets
$3,579,481
Liabilities
$570,407

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

Leadership & pay

23 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • THOMAS OKUDA FITZPATRICK (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • SHARON STEWART-MURPHY (IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • THOMAS OKUDA FITZPATRICK (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $172,811 total reported compensation
  • ANDREW HAUGH (DIRECTOR OF FINANCE): $144,629 total reported compensation
  • BRENDA HICKS (DEPUTY DIRECTOR): $129,725 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Home of va ensures equal access to housing opportunities by building individual capacity, ensuring compliance with fair housing laws, and promoting effective public policy to advance housing justice.

What it reported doing in 2024

HOMEs Fair Housing Advocacy program advocates passionately for justice in housing. We protect and advance the rights of individuals and communities facing present-day housing discrimination or the impacts of historic discrimination through administrative complaints, litigation, public education, and public policy. In FY2024-2025, HOME provided fair housing services to more than 260 individuals, conducted nearly 100 fair housing education and outreach workshops to various groups around the state, and filed 19 lawsuits/complaints on behalf of discrimination victims. Additionally, seven housing-related complaints were referred to outside attorneys for assistance. One case of note involves Peggy Bauckman and her sister-in-law, Pat Jaco. When Peggys mobility declined, she asked her Charlottesville landlord for reasonable accommodations like accessible parking. He refused - and evicted her for being a nuisance. Peggys sister-in-law, Pat Jaco, took her in. But Pats inaccessible house meant Peggy had to sleep in an armchair and use a portable toilet. Though Peggy eventually found accessible housing, the trauma lingered; Pat often found her crying alone. Ten months after the unlawful eviction, Peggy passed away. After the Virginia Fair Housing Office found that Peggys landlord had violated the law, HOME of VA filed a federal lawsuit and secured a settlement for Peggys family. Her case illustrates the devastating human cost when landlords choose discrimination over fair housing, and how HOME of VA holds landlords accountable. Informed by client experiences and stories, our public policy team developed an ambitious state legislative agenda. We and our community partners successfully advocated for the 2025 Virginia General Assembly to pass-most with bipartisan support -- six of HOME of VAs priority bills to expand access to housing, reduce discrimination in property appraisals and valuations, curb our high eviction rates, and improve housing conditions. HOME of VA, with the mobilization of over a hundred local residents, also advocated for housing equity at the local level. We promoted zoning reforms in Chesterfield County and property tax relief in Richmond City to increase housing access and stability.

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 70% for direct work, and 30% for grants.

The verdict

STRONG - 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 total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 91
  • Transparency & Controls: 72
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 43
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 89.5%; rating input score 89
  • Program expense ratio: 96.7%; rating input score 97
  • Fundraising efficiency: $52.75 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 13th 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; 72nd 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: 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: 7.6%; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.65; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.16; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 10.3%; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 11.1% per year; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.9% per year; rating input score 100; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 10.8% per year; rating input score 100; 61st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 89.5% of revenue deployed · 96.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 19 of 19 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $5.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $173K · 23 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 22 of 23 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 9 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 6 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.
  • 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 — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 24/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 57/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 29/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 49/100.