Housing Support Services Alliance

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
933734289
IRS 990 coverage
2024–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-N 2023
Location
Austin, TX, USA
Phone
5126957684
Rating
80
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Human Services

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$576,789
Expenses
$432,981
Assets
$198,684
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • PATRICIA MURPHY (FOUNDER & EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

People named in this filing

  • PATRICIA MURPHY (FOUNDER & EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • TWEENZETTE ROSS (CHAIR)
  • KIMBERLY ELLISON (VICE CHAIR)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

Housing support services alliance is a nonprofit organization that provides enhanced on-site supportive services to Texas affordable multifamily properties and works one-on-one with residents to prevent evictions.

What it reported doing in 2025

Our case managers work one-on-one with residents that fall behind on rental payments and connect them with rental assistance, utility bill assistance, food assistance, employment opportunities, unemployment income, low cost child-care, and low cost transportation. For households that we are able to successfully stabilize, we pay off their past due rent balances with charitable contributions. Eviction prevention case management services can be provided as a stand-alone service or rolled into a package with on-site supportive services that satisfy the supportive services requirements of a land use restriction agreement (lura). Providing general contractor services for the development of affordable housing.

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 48% for direct work, and 52% for grants.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 72
  • Transparency & Controls: 94
  • Accountability: 76
  • Sustainability: 63
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 67.3%; rating input score 67
  • Program expense ratio: 89.6%; rating input score 90
  • Fundraising efficiency: $12.89 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 78th 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: 3 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 43
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 24.9%; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.46; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 76.1% per year; rating input score 100; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 82.5% per year; rating input score 100; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 126.3% per year; rating input score 100; 99th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 67.3% of revenue deployed · 89.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $388K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 21 of 21 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2024 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 6 not reported.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 43/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 23/100.