Maac Housing Corporation
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 330913559
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2016–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2015
- Location
- Chula Vista, CA, USA
- Phone
- 6194263595
- Rating
- 58
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Housing Development, Construction, Management
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $9,716,108
- Expenses
- $1,818,382
- Assets
- $67,857,889
- Liabilities
- $9,837,376
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
3 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- ARNULFO MANRIQUEZ (CEO/TREASURER)
Highest reported compensation
- ARNULFO MANRIQUEZ (CEO/TREASURER): $399,882 total reported compensation
- AUSTIN FOYE (CFO): $233,101 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Welfaremaac housing corporation was organized and operated for the purpose of promoting decent, safe and affordable housing for low income persons
What it reported doing in 2024
Carlsbad laurel tree apartments-carlsbad apartments consists of a 138-unit low income housing project in 23 residential buildings together with open space and recreational amenities located in san diego county, California, in which maac housing corporation (mhc) serves as a limited partner. Maac president john adams manor apartments, llc (maac pjam llc)- maac pjam llc was formed in march 2016 with mhc as the sole member for the purpose of acquiring the president john adams manor apartments (the project) from the pjam lp, an affiliated partnership. The general partner is pjam inc., a California exempt organization. The project consists of 300 units of affordable rental housing in 38 residential buildings located in the city san diego, California. Mhc became the sole owner of the apartment project in may 2016, receiving an allocation of 100% of the losses as its sole member. Maac san martin de porres llc-effective june 1, 2017, san martin de porres, l.p., sold the project to san martin de porres, llc, a wholly owned subsidiary of maac housing corporation. The project consists of a 116-unit, affordable rental housing apartment located in the city of spring valley, san diego county, California. Maac community center was transferred to mcc chula vista, llc, a sole member subsidiary of maac housing corp, as of may, 2017. The projsct is a 73,000 square foot property located in chula vista, California, which is used for a charter school and various programs. During 2020, maac housing corp became a limited partner in two additional partnerships: maac ivy lp (99.99%) and maac national city lp (99.99%). These entities hold land to be developed into affordable rental housing projects, with construction expected to commence in 2022. Mhc was formed to provide decent, safe and affordable housing for low income persons and families. In addition, these projects create supportive communities, include quality property management, tenant governance councils, culturallysensitive social services, work skill enhancement programs, community leadership and organization, and intervention strategies for children and youth. They provide a comprehensive program of support services to their residents, including a diverse and culturally appropriate library, an after-school reading program, on-site childcare, an active tenant association, a lunch program, and a summer camp participation program. Mhc was formed to support the metropolitan area advisory committee on anti-poverty of san diego county, inc, a California nonprofit benefit corporation.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- 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
MIXED - 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 few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 44
- Transparency & Controls: 64
- Accountability: 67
- Sustainability: 90
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 19.6%; rating input score 20
- Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: Limited
- Major donor itemization: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 66.7%; rating input score 67; 11th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 6 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 67
- 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: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 81.3%; rating input score 98; 98th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 37.32; rating input score 98; 98th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.14; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 2.4%; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -2.3% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 17.2% per year; rating input score 100; 85th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 18.7% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 19.6% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 2 of 3 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.8M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $400K · 3 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 22 of 22 current checks pass
- Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes executive pay
- Filing history: 8 filing years from 2016 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Related organizations: 11 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 20/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 9 not reported.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 51/100.