Oakland Livingston Human Service Agency

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
381785665
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Pontiac, MI, USA
Phone
2482092600
Rating
79
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Human Service Organizations

Reported finances

Revenue
$30,103,894
Expenses
$30,098,845
Assets
$16,024,530
Liabilities
$12,166,833

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

Leadership & pay

30 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SUSAN HARDING (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • SUSAN HARDING (CEO): $189,374 total reported compensation
  • WILLIAM PAGEN (TECHNOLOGY DIRECTOR): $173,153 total reported compensation
  • JAMES COLE (TECHNOLOGY MANAGER): $165,203 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 enable the low income, elderly and disabled of oakland and livingston county to become more self-sufficient.

What it reported doing in 2024

Child & family services division: early childhood programs - an important part of olhsa's mission is helping young children fulfill their potential. We offer several programs designed to make sure children have access to the nutritional, medical, and educational services they need. Together these programs provide young children and their families with opportunities both in and out of the classroom; opportunities that they might not have otherwise. Many of these programs also offer support for the family since healthy childhood development depends just as much on strong family relationships and ready access to physicians as it does on having a positive classroom environment. Eligibility for these programs is determined primarily by income and age but special consideration is given to other factors

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 83% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 76% for direct work, and 24% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Revenue has declined or grown slowly and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 88
  • Transparency & Controls: 68
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 31
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 88.4%; rating input score 88
  • Program expense ratio: 88.4%; rating input score 88
  • Fundraising efficiency: $247.59 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 72.2%; rating input score 72; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 0%; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.53; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.76; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 2.3%; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 1.4% per year; rating input score 100; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -1.3% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8.1% per year; rating input score 100; 55th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 88.4% of revenue deployed · 88.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 24 of 26 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $26.6M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $189K · 30 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $963K reported
  • Consistency: 24 of 26 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 13 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 13 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

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 — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 32/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 17/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 15/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.