Path Home
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 263967833
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2011–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Portland, OR, USA
- Phone
- 5039158306
- Rating
- 79
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Homeless Shelters
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $8,038,983
- Expenses
- $6,844,918
- Assets
- $11,571,456
- Liabilities
- $3,189,751
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
18 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- BRANDI TUCK (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- BRANDI TUCK (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $192,354 total reported compensation
- RON SHUBERT (CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER): $144,756 total reported compensation
- ALI DUNCAN (DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR): $115,322 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 empower homeless families with children to get back into housing - and to stay there.
What it reported doing in 2024
The organization operates family village shelter for up to 17 homeless families with children at a time. Family village is the first shelter in Oregon designed featuring trauma informed design and architecture, which helps families heal from the crisis and trauma of homelessness and can lead to better outcomes like shorter shelter stays and greater success moving into housing. Families staying at family village each have their own, private bedroom with real beds, plus they have access to a full-service kitchen and dining room, library, computer lab, classroom, laundry room, playground, basketball court, vegetable garden, and dog walk area. In this fiscal year, family village hosted 65 families made up of 262 kids and parents. On average, families stayed in shelter 106 days before transitioning to permanent housing and 92% of families moved into housing from shelter.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 62% for direct work, and 38% 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. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 72
- Transparency & Controls: 79
- Accountability: 91
- Sustainability: 59
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 71.6%; rating input score 72
- Program expense ratio: 81.9%; rating input score 82
- Fundraising efficiency: $11.76 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Pass
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd 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: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 14.9%; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.69; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.28; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 6.6%; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 15.7% per year; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 16.3% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 21.5% per year; rating input score 100; 86th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 71.6% of revenue deployed · 81.9% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 15 of 15 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $5.6M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $192K · 18 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 36 of 36 current checks pass
- Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
- 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: Fundraising efficiency scored 43/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
- Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 56/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 36/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 44/100.