Rhf Charitable Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
472747112
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2014
Location
Long Beach, CA, USA
Phone
5622575100
Rating
57
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,483,260
Expenses
$1,001,813
Assets
$11,692,830
Liabilities
$16,560

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

Leadership & pay

26 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • HARTMAN STUART J (PRESIDENT/CEO)
  • TITUS STEPHANIE L (PRESIDENT)
  • LITTLE LORI (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • READINGER MICHAEL (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • HARTMAN STUART J (PRESIDENT/CEO): $770,133 total reported compensation
  • AMBERG ROBERT R (EXECUTIVE VP GEN COUNSEL): $530,647 total reported compensation
  • ROSSELLO FRANK JR (CFO AND VP OF FINANCE): $488,122 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Rhf charitable foundation's charitable purpose is to 1) provide benevolent care, life enrichment services and programs, and grants to assist residents living in rhf-affiliated facilities, and 2) preserve and create affordable hosuing communities nationwide.

What it reported doing in 2024

The organization fundraises, administers, and distributes charitable funds on behalf of retirement housing foundation (rhf). Programs include rental assitance, and educational, community enrichment, and pre-development grants for affordable hosuing. The organization has a number of initiatives for resident beneveloence at the rhf facilities including scholarships and toys for kids at rhf's low-income family residences, rent subsidies at rhf's low-income and market rate senior residences, disaster relief in conjuction with the efforts of the united church of christ and development support in the building of low-income multifamily residences.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and program spending has grown recently. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of voting board members are independent.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 49
  • Transparency & Controls: 68
  • Accountability: 41
  • Sustainability: 77
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 49.6%; rating input score 50
  • Program expense ratio: 59.3%; rating input score 59
  • Fundraising efficiency: $4.43 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 14.3%; rating input score 14; 9th 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: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: 32.5%; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 11.67; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 63.5%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 10.2% per year; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.7% per year; rating input score 100; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 13.7% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 49.6% of revenue deployed · 59.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 1 of 7 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $594K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $770K · 26 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 24 of 25 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2015 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Related organizations: 236 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 50/100.
  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 14/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 59/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 15/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 1/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.