Sacramento Housing Alliance

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
680252305
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2020
Location
Sacramento, CA, USA
Phone
9164554900
Rating
69
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$465,791
Expenses
$259,363
Assets
$562,528
Liabilities
$9,974

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Jonathan Cook (Executive Director)
  • Nur Kausar (President)
  • Rachel Mueller (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Jonathan Cook (Executive Director): $65,921 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Sacramento Housing Alliance advocates for safe stable accessible and affordable homes for homeless and lower income people in healthy communities through education leadership and policy change.

What it reported doing in 2025

SHA was founded in 1989 and incorporated in 1991 by a group of non-profit developers a legal services attorney a homeless service provider and an employee from the California Department of Housing and Community Development. From its inception SHA was a membership organization with the board composed primarily of people working in housing rights homeless services and civil rights fields and representing dues-paying organizations. As a collaborator SHA has brought together organizations of activists who represent communities that are experiencing system impacts. Sacramento Homeless Organizing Committee Sacramento Services Not Sweeps Coalition Building Healthy Communities Sacramento Investment without Displacement Housing California SAC ACT and many other individual residents activists scholars and independent researchers with lived experiences of housing insecurity partner with SHA to adopt a community centered approach and build collective power for housing rights. With over 5,500 people experiencing homelessness on any given night 81% of the countys extremely low-income households or those who earn less than one-third the areas median income already pay more than half their earnings on housing and utilities. SHA is determined to create solutions and improvements for low-income residents who deserve a healthy and safe place to call home. For over 30 years SHA has advocated for safe stable accessible and affordable homes in the Sacramento region. SHAs primary goals are to 1 increase access to affordable housing through secured funding advocacy and development 2 prevent displacement gentrification and homelessness from occurring to low-income residents through grassroots organizing efforts and education 3 work with local and state governments on policy recommendations in all matters of housing and 4 remove systemic barriers to marginalized communities by engaging in county-wide innovative multidisciplinary partnerships to streamline antiquated systems of service delivery.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 91% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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

SUPPORTED - A large share of total spending goes to programs and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 62
  • Transparency & Controls: 66
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 65
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 47.6%; rating input score 48
  • Program expense ratio: 85%; rating input score 85
  • Fundraising efficiency: $34.55 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 44.3%; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.17; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 25.4%; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -3.1% per year; rating input score 0; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2.1% per year; rating input score 100; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7.9% per year; rating input score 100; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 47.6% of revenue deployed · 85% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $220K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $66K · 6 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 42 of 43 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2014 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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 48/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 14/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 35/100.