Housing Plus

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
273541853
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Midvale, UT, USA
Phone
8013169118
Rating
66
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Housing Development, Construction, Management

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,461,486
Expenses
$876,374
Assets
$14,567,674
Liabilities
$6,276,360

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

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DANIEL ADAMS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • DANIEL ADAMS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $318,033 total reported compensation
  • AMY THORNTON (CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER): $218,172 total reported compensation
  • LUANN SPANGENBERG (LENDING MANAGER): $113,392 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Innovatively utilize resources to preserve & create quality affordable multi-family housing committed to fulfilling individual housing needs and stabilize neighborhoods.

What it reported doing in 2025

Housing plus owns .01% interest in crown at gemini meadows, llc; crown at hunter glen, llc; crown at ash creek, llc; wooded mountain, llc; and crown gemini meadows ii, llc. These entities will provide single family homes in Utah which will be subject to rent restrictions and qualified tenant restrictions.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 80% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
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 - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 52
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Accountability: 86
  • Sustainability: 76
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 44%; rating input score 44
  • Program expense ratio: 81.8%; rating input score 82
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Scored; rating input score 0

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • 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: 40%; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 16.62; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.43; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 7.2%; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -5.3% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -14% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -1.7% per year; rating input score 0; 11th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 44% of revenue deployed · 81.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $717K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $318K · 16 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 29 of 29 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes executive pay and related organizations
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2011 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Related organizations: 11 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 44/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Related-party transparency scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 14/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 45/100.