Human Services Campus Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
463333160
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Phoenix, AZ, USA
Phone
6022820583
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Housing Development, Construction, Management

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$26,078,729
Expenses
$21,319,388
Assets
$38,052,682
Liabilities
$1,726,103

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

Leadership & pay

21 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Amy Schwabenlender (CEO)
  • Letticia Brown-Gambino (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Amy Schwabenlender (CEO): $186,255 total reported compensation
  • Joseph Lasada (CFO): $138,162 total reported compensation
  • Letticia Brown-Gambino (Executive Director): $126,459 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Keys to Change is using the power of collaboration to create solutions to end homelessness.

What it reported doing in 2024

Coordinated Entry (Welcome Center) The Brian Garcia Welcome Center (Welcome Center) is the front door to the Key Campus in downtown Phoenix. The Welcome Center is the only 24/7/365 walk-up location for homeless people in Maricopa County. Whether single adult, family with children or youth on their own, staff provides each client with diversion, assessment, resources, housing and service referrals with the primary goal of resolving homelessness. As the Continuum of Care approved lead for single adult coordinated entry, Keys to Change manages a network of access points, like the Welcome Center, across Maricopa County (40+ sites) ensuring that the assessment tool is utilized, data is entered reliably, and people are referred to housing. Keys to Change is responsible for ensuring high quality intake and assessment across this network, managing a by-name list of 8,000 people, holding weekly case conferencing sessions and matching clients to housing programs.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 68% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 77% for direct work, and 23% for grants.

The verdict

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

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 64
  • Transparency & Controls: 79
  • Accountability: 91
  • Sustainability: 72
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 61%; rating input score 61
  • Program expense ratio: 74.6%; rating input score 75
  • Fundraising efficiency: $12.81 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • 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; 66th 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: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 18.2%; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.78; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.05; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 3.6%; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 27.7% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 25.8% per year; rating input score 100; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 11.8% per year; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 61% of revenue deployed · 74.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 14 of 14 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $15.9M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $186K · 21 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $6.4M reported
  • Consistency: 32 of 32 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2016 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 6 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 45/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 58/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.