Partners in Housing Development Corporation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
351917637
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Indianapolis, IN, USA
Phone
3176331861
Rating
55
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Housing Development, Construction, Management

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,041,570
Expenses
$1,927,037
Assets
$17,750,604
Liabilities
$885,365

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JENNIFER GREEN (FORMER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • LAUREN RODRIGUEZ (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • JENNIFER GREEN (FORMER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $36,800 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Partners in housing development corporation was incorporated as an Indiana not-for-profit corporation in november 1993. The mission is to provide affordable housing to the people who most need a stable place to live, while giving them support and a chance to reach their highest level of self-sufficiency. To meet these objectives, the corporation's activities include, but are not limited to, the acquisition, development, rehabilitation, and construction of real property for low income housing and to provide supportive services.

What it reported doing in 2024

At december 31, 2024, the corporation owned or operated the following low income housing projects and support programs: burton ii, 23 units, special needs, indianapolis, in - general partnercolonial park apartments, 106 units, special needs, indianapolis, in - general partnermozingo place, special needs, indianapolis, in - wholly ownedblue triangle apts, special needs, indianapolis, in- wholly ownedguerin place apts., 19 units, special needs, indianapolis, in - wholly ownedlinwood apartments, 28 units, special needs, indianapolis, in - wholly ownedfall creek, 50 units, special needs, indianapolis, in - general partnerglenmoor, 24 units, special needs, indianapolis, in - wholly ownedapperson way, 69 units, special needs, indianapolis, in - general partnerblue-mozingo, 72 units, special needs, indianapolis, in - general partnertriple p apartments, 87 units, special needs, indianapolis, in - general partnercolonial park, l.p., special needs, indianapolis, in - wholly ownedthe point on fall creek, 59 units, special needs, indianapolis, in - general partner

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 a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 8
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 68
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 1.3%; rating input score 1
  • Program expense ratio: 1.6%; rating input score 2
  • Fundraising efficiency: $24.43 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings

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: Scored; rating input score 0

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 8 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: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 5.6%; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 9.21; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.05; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 1.9%; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -11.5% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -5% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 1.9% per year; rating input score 100; 19th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 1.3% of revenue deployed · 1.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $31K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $37K · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 29 of 29 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and related organizations
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 20 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 1/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 2/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Related-party transparency scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 52/100.