Idaho Housing Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
753162969
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Boise, ID, USA
Phone
2083314756
Rating
81
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Housing Support

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,620,498
Expenses
$2,283,889
Assets
$2,296,984
Liabilities
$182,925

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Gerald M Hunter (President-IHFA Executive Director)
  • Brady Ellis (Executive Vice President-IHFA VP)

Highest reported compensation

  • Gerald M Hunter (President-IHFA Executive Director): $619,040 total reported compensation
  • John Chung (Treasurer-IHFA CFO): $373,078 total reported compensation
  • Brady Ellis (Executive Vice President-IHFA VP): $265,355 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To enhance safe, stable and affordable housing throughout Idaho. (Continued on Schedule O)The Idaho Housing Foundation, Inc. helps people build a strong foundation for their lives through stable, safe, and affordable housing. The Foundation supports shelters and shelter services for Idaho's homeless and most disadvantaged, helps clients avoid eviction and prevent homelessness, encourages asset building to help clients build financial independence, and facilitates tax-advantaged property donations for affordable housing purposes.

What it reported doing in 2024

The Avenues for Hope Housing Challenge is an annual online fundraiser that supports 99 nonprofits and schools that provide housing and supportive services throughout Idaho. In 2024, $5.2 million was raised and was provided directly to nonprofit agencies. More than $20.8 million has been raised since the campaign began in 2011.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 94% of its reported program spending out as 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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 96
  • Transparency & Controls: 67
  • Accountability: 82
  • Sustainability: 23
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 93.7%; rating input score 94
  • Fundraising efficiency: $97.48 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 19th 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: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 41st 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: 5 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 56
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -40.9%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.01; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.08; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 12.6%; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 9.8% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.4% per year; rating input score 100; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 1.4% per year; rating input score 100; 23rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 93.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 5 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $2.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $619K · 10 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 24 of 25 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 42 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 44 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 4/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 43/100.
  • 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 46/100.