Matrix Housing Services

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
473667784
IRS 990 coverage
2017–2020
Forms available
Form 990 2020, Form 990-EZ 2016, Form 990-N 2015
Location
Minneapolis, MN, USA
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Housing Support

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,901,879
Expenses
$1,785,551
Assets
$403,720
Liabilities
$321,660

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SUBASHINI AMBROSE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • SUBASHINI AMBROSE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $105,746 total reported compensation
  • KRISTEN BROWN (DIRECTOR OF PROGRAMS): $104,365 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The mission of matrix housing services is to deliver high-quality programs and well rounded services for people experiencing homelessness.

What it reported doing in 2020

Emergyency shelter and resource center: matrix emergency shelter served 199 adults who were experiencing homelessness in dakota county. We provided a safe place to sleep, food, and case management support services. In march 2020, shelter operations were moved to a hotel to provide non-congregate shelter in response to covid-19. Matrix resource center served an average of 30 people daily. The resource center provided breakfast and lunch, showers, laundry, case management support services, and a safe place to be during the weekdays. Guests had access to phones and computers to support job and housing searches.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 97% 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 a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 60
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 60
  • Sustainability: 27
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 65.9%; rating input score 66
  • Program expense ratio: 70.2%; rating input score 70
  • 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: 50%; rating input score 50; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • 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: 6.1%; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.23; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.8; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 11.8%; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 36.8% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 50.3% per year; rating input score 100; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 57.6% per year; rating input score 100; 97th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 65.9% of revenue deployed · 70.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 2 of 4 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $1.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $106K · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 27 of 27 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2017 to 2020
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 8 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

  • Review — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 50/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 41/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 7/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 10/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 34/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.