La Crosse Community Housing Development Organization Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
810594012
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2018
Forms available
Form 990 2018, Form 990-EZ 2013
Location
Westby, WI, USA
Phone
6086343104
Rating
69
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Housing Development, Construction, Management

Reported finances

Revenue
$495,364
Expenses
$96,171
Assets
$1,148,819
Liabilities
$814,305

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2018. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • KEN WING (PRESIDENT)
  • KATHIE KNOBLE-IVERSON (VICE-PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • KEVIN CLEMENTS (BOARD MEMBER)
  • MONIQUE LESLIE (BOARD MEMBER)
  • AMY MARCOU (BOARD MEMBER)

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 2018. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The la crosse community housing development organization, inc. Mission is to provide affordable, quality housing for low to moderate income person(s) and to improver their quality of life.

What it reported doing in 2018

In 2018, the la crosse community housing development organization, inc. (lchdo) transferred ownership of one lot to habitat for humanity. They were a partner on a larger development project on the corner of 5th and Mississippi streets. Lchdo continued to work with habitat to develop their other two lots and the lndc to try and move forward with developing their two lots. Lchdo started building a twin home as part of this development. Lchdo purchased a property on park avenue that will be rehabbed and eventually sold.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 85% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
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: 44
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 82
  • Sustainability: 83
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 19.3%; rating input score 19
  • Program expense ratio: 99.2%; rating input score 99
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

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: Limited
  • 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: 4 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 57
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 80.6%; rating input score 98; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 11.95; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.71; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -24.5% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 13.1% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 23.3% per year; rating input score 100; 88th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 19.3% of revenue deployed · 99.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 4 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $95K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 20 of 20 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2014 to 2018
  • 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.

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

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 19/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 9/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.