Housing Partnership of Chester County Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
232550366
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Downingtown, PA, USA
Phone
6105181522
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,354,580
Expenses
$1,326,858
Assets
$1,257,046
Liabilities
$838,280

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

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • John Yurkutat (President)
  • Joseph Gangemi (Vice President)
  • Kenneth R Hutton (Executive Director)
  • Jeff Spencer (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Jeff Spencer (Executive Director): $106,667 total reported compensation
  • Kenneth R Hutton (Executive Director): $25,200 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The Housing Partnership of Chester County (HPCC) assists low-to-moderate income individuals and families in the acquisition and retention of long-term attainable housing in Chester County, helping to create and grow safe, stable communities.

What it reported doing in 2025

Pennsylvania Housing Affordability and Rehabilitation Enhancement Fund (PHARE) provides safe and sanitary dwellings for sale or rent to low income and moderate income individuals; increases the availability or quality of housing for elderly persons; increases the availability or quality of accessible housing for persons with disabilities; prevents or reduces homelessness; provides mortgage or rental assistance, including housing counseling, foreclosure prevention and refinancing products; and provides loans, low-interest loans or grants to low-income and moderate-income individuals or families who are owner-occupants for repairs and improvement to their home.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 69% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 44% for direct work, and 56% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 84
  • Transparency & Controls: 52
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 35
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 90%; rating input score 90
  • Program expense ratio: 91.8%; rating input score 92
  • Fundraising efficiency: $7.6 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.1%; rating input score 94; 26th 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: 0%; rating input score 0; 15th 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: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 2%; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.95; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.67; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 9.9%; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -1.3% per year; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 0.3% per year; rating input score 100; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -2.4% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 90% of revenue deployed · 91.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 14 of 14 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 9 filed program accomplishments · $1.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $107K · 16 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $414K reported
  • Consistency: 30 of 31 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 26/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 37/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 41/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 9/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 37/100.