San Francisco Housing Action Coalition

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
831881525
IRS 990 coverage
2018–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
San Francisco, CA, USA
Phone
4157324502
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Alliance/Advocacy Organizations

Reported finances

Revenue
$616,190
Expenses
$1,106,820
Assets
$73,502
Liabilities
$162,782

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

Leadership & pay

21 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Randi Gerson (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Corey Smith (Executive Dir.): $158,546 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Promote public understanding of policies supporting the creation of well-designed, well-located housing at all levels of affordability for residents of the Bay Area, California.

What it reported doing in 2024

HAC educates and engages the public on housing issues and policies that influence affordability, availability, and accessibility throughout the Bay Area and California. In 2024, HAC deepened its educational outreach by helping communities, policymakers, and stakeholders better understand the factors that shape housing development. Through workshops, reports, and collaborative discussions, we highlighted barriers such as lengthy entitlement and permitting processes and high development fees. By sharing research and facilitating dialogue with state leaders in Sacramento, we helped inform policy solutions that advance a more affordable and equitable housing future. Our progress reflects the expertise and perspectives of HAC members, whose insights guided the educational and policy priorities we pursued.

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 99% 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 available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 82
  • Transparency & Controls: 70
  • Accountability: 76
  • Sustainability: 5
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 72.1%; rating input score 72
  • Fundraising efficiency: $6.71 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 16th 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: Pass
    • 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: 95.5%; rating input score 95; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -79.6%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.07; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 2.21; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 14.3%; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 16.5% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 12.5% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.7% per year; rating input score 100; 42nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 72.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 21 of 22 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $798K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $159K · 21 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 27 of 28 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2018 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 25/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 2/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 3/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 2/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 24/100.