Lea County Housing Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
200951085
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Official website data refreshed
Jul 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Hobbs, NM, USA
Phone
5756919637
Rating
62
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Housing, Shelter N.E.C.

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$11,204
Expenses
$12,631
Assets
$1,214,717
Liabilities
$7,600

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

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • D HAYNES (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • D HAYNES (PRESIDENT)
  • W BELL (VICEPRESIDENT)
  • D WALL (TREASURER)

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 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To increase the quality, quanity and availability of affordable housing in lea county

What it reported doing in 2024

Last of december and early january 2013. Apartment construction began in febraury 2013 and was completed march 2014. The apartments are over 98% occupied by familes in the 30%, 50% and 60% income limits. Lchi receives a 10% development fee payment from chelsea for park place that is paid out over several years. Fourth accomplishment - chelsea investments also requested lchit to be the non-profit general partner on another mfa tax credit project. A 58 unit affordable housing project called parkside terrace was pursued in january 2016 and selected for mfa lihtc funding. The project was comp- leted in early 2018. 95% of units are rented to 30%,50%& 60% income (continued on schedule 0)

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 63% 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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

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 a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 32
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Accountability: 76
  • Sustainability: 59
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 37.5%; rating input score 37
  • Program expense ratio: 33.3%; rating input score 33
  • 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: Limited
  • 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: -12.7%; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 96.17; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -25.3% per year; rating input score 0; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -15.2% per year; rating input score 0; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4.9% per year; rating input score 100; 65th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 37.5% of revenue deployed · 33.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $4K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 9 people listed
  • Consistency: 15 of 15 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 37/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 33/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 44/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 30/100.