Shalom House

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
232447254
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2023
Forms available
Form 990 2023
Location
Harrisburg, PA, USA
Phone
7172323482
Rating
90
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Standard

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$287,800
Expenses
$435,030
Assets
$251,194
Liabilities
$101,878

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

17 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • KYLA HARVEY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR THROUGH OCT. 2023)
  • TYMIA GREEN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FROM FEB. 2024)
  • JULIE BOWMAN (PRESIDENT THROUGH MARCH 2024)
  • ROSHUN GALLOWAY (PRESIDENT FROM MARCH 2024)
  • ROSHUN GALLOWAY (VICE PRESIDENT THROUGH MARCH 2024)

Highest reported compensation

  • KYLA HARVEY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR THROUGH OCT. 2023): $71,351 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

See schedule o

What it reported doing in 2023

Sharp program: (shalom house after-care rapid rehousing program) serves women who are, by hud definition, chronically homeless. These are women who may have verified disability or report being HIV positive, homeless four times in three years, have monthly incomes of $600 or less, and generally have a history of substance abuse and/or mental health problems. Two thirds of the women served by sharp are women of color. The program focuses on providing rental assistance for single women who are homeless and have a disability so that they may live as independently as possible. While participating in the sharp program participants are required to develop an individual goal plan and work with our case management team to address these desired goals. During the 23-24 fiscal year the sharp program served 9 women. The women participated in monthly group session and individual case management.

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 78% for direct work, and 22% for grants.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 92
  • Transparency & Controls: 96
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 15
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 86.4%; rating input score 86
  • Fundraising efficiency: $30.64 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 81st 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 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • 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: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -51.2%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.58; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.41; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 16.4%; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 2.4% per year; rating input score 100; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2.3% per year; rating input score 100; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.4% per year; rating input score 100; 50th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 86.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $376K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $71K · 17 people listed
  • Consistency: 30 of 31 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2011 to 2023
  • 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.

  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 6/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 27/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Form 990 shared with the board not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 13/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 23/100.