Oregon Affordable Housing Management Association

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
800038835
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Forest Grove, OR, USA
Phone
5033577140
Rating
62
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Chambers of Commerce & Business Leagues

Reported finances

Revenue
$259,239
Expenses
$258,962
Assets
$403,353
Liabilities
$522

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

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Shelly Hillman (President)
  • Marsha Zimmerman (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • Sandy Garabedian (Director)
  • Shelly Hillman (President)
  • Tonya Thomason (Director)

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 provide education and advocacy to the owners, management agents, and project management staff of federally subsidized multifamily housing for low income families, seniors & people with disabilities

What it reported doing in 2024

Oregon AHMA is a mission-driven trade association providing continuing education to providers of federally subsidized multifamily housing, including HUD, Rural Development, Tax Credit, Bond, LIFT, and HOME. This past fiscal year, we provided 27 continuing education classes to 680 individuals at our monthly classes, held in-person and in webinar format. We offered classes on the new NSPIRE rules, landlord-tenant law, time management, conflict resolution, occupancy certification courses for RD, HUD, LIHTC & HOME, as well as classes on VAWA, AFHMP, fair housing, and much more. We offered training on hot topics such as HOTMA, VAWA, AFHMP, Student Rules, and Fair Housing. Our professional membership includes 60 organizations. Our vendor associate membership includes 18 companies.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

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: 39
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 49
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 44.4%; rating input score 44
  • Program expense ratio: 44.5%; rating input score 44
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • 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: 0.1%; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.56; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -2% per year; rating input score 0; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2.4% per year; rating input score 100; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7% per year; rating input score 100; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 44.4% of revenue deployed · 44.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $115K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 9 people listed
  • Consistency: 23 of 25 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 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 44/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 44/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 40/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX DepreciationDepletion column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 53/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 56/100.