Orange Housing Development Corp
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 900507823
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2014–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Orange, NJ, USA
- Phone
- 9736774577
- Rating
- 68
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Housing Development, Construction, Management
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $575,149
- Expenses
- $487,418
- Assets
- $2,824,344
- Liabilities
- $592,083
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
9 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- WALTER D MCNEIL JR (PRESIDENT)
People named in this filing
- AVRAM WHITE (MEMBER)
- DENNIS MOTLEY (VICE CHAIRMAN)
- CLIFFORD ROSS (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 develop, own, and operate low-income housing and provide services to low-income families, elderly, handicapped, homeless, potentially homeless, or otherwise disadvantaged persons.
What it reported doing in 2024
Organization seeks to effect a positive change in the community through the development of quality affordable housing for moderate and low income families. Income limitations and definitions established by hud guidelines by county. A person is considered to be of low income only if he or she is a member of a household whose income would qualify as "very low income" under the section 8 housing assistance payments program. Generally, these section 8 limits are based on 50% of area median. Similarly, moderate income relies on section 8, "lower income" limits, which are generally tied to 80% of area median.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Affiliate-supported. 73% of the money available for current operations came from contributions from related organizations.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 94% 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: 50
- Transparency & Controls: 83
- Accountability: 76
- Sustainability: 71
- Growth: 80
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 52.8%; rating input score 53
- Program expense ratio: 62.3%; rating input score 62
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 87.5%; rating input score 88; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 63.7%; rating input score 64; 31st percentile among comparable filings
- 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: 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: Fail
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 15.3%; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 5.79; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.21; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 9.9% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 0.2% per year; rating input score 100; 15th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -0.5% per year; rating input score 0; 16th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 52.8% of revenue deployed · 62.3% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $304K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 9 people listed
- Consistency: 28 of 30 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
- Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
- Filing history: 10 filing years from 2014 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Related organizations: 6 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.
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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 53/100.
- Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 31/100.
- High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.