Simpson Housing Services Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 411759477
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Minneapolis, MN, USA
- Phone
- 6128748683
- Rating
- 74
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Standard
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $23,051,683
- Expenses
- $13,624,640
- Assets
- $35,402,950
- Liabilities
- $14,401,872
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
22 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- STEVE PROESCHEL (PRESIDENT)
- STEPHANIE ABEL (VICE PRESIDENT)
- STEVE HORSFIELD (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- STEVE HORSFIELD (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $176,190 total reported compensation
- WENDY WIEGMANN (ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR): $145,288 total reported compensation
- ELISABETH LOEFFLER (DIRECTOR OF ADVANCEMENTS A): $126,586 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Simpson housing services' mission is to house, support, & advocate for people experiencing homelessness. We know that with close, individual advocacy & support individuals & families experiencing homelessness achieve housing stability.
What it reported doing in 2024
Children and youth services: simpson's dual focus on family support and children's programming is unique among organizations providing services to families experiencing homelessness. Dedicated family support specialists help connect parents to our children and youth services programs to provide specific support to children. In fiscal year 2025, 151 families with 174 children participated in one or more of the following programs: early childhood, youth tutoring, youth group mentoring, and education support programs.early childhood program: the early childhood program uses a home visiting model to promote the healthy development of young children and their families. Goals for the program include on-track developmental growth, parental engagement in literacy and language activities, and placement in high-quality childcare. Staff partners with parents to provide the support and resources to ensure their children are ready for kindergarten through a combination of wellness, developmental, and educational support services. Youth tutoring program: educational support advocates and highly trained literacy volunteers work closely with children and families to improve reading and academic skills through weekly tutoring specifically designed to meet the needs of each individual student. Goals for the program include improved academic performance, increased attendance, improved self-efficacy, and strong parental involvement in their child's education. Education support program: education support specialists partner with parents in scattered-site housing to support their children's academic success, stability, and well-being. Goals for the program include increasing parental sense of self-efficacy as advocates for their children; increasing grades, attendance, and graduation rates; and supporting families to build community connections that will support their children after exiting simpson. Es specialists may help parents with school enrollment, accessing special education services, navigating teacher relationships, and supporting learning at home. They may also work with children to access enrichment activities, develop positive social-emotional skills, and access mental health resources. Youth group mentoring: program coordinator and highly trained youth group mentoring volunteers work closely with young people ages 12-17 in a group of 2 adults and 3-5 young people to provide space for leadership skill development and community building through weekly mentoring sessions designed to support the young people. Goals for the program include increased connection to supportive adults, increased leadership skills, and increased school attendance.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Grant-funded. 73% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
- 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.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
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 few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 63
- Transparency & Controls: 69
- Accountability: 95
- Sustainability: 74
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 49.4%; rating input score 49
- Program expense ratio: 83.5%; rating input score 83
- Fundraising efficiency: $35.2 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd 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: Limited
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- 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: 40.9%; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.6; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.41; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 5%; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 6.3% per year; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 10.2% per year; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 19.7% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 49.4% of revenue deployed · 83.5% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 17 of 17 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $11.4M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $176K · 22 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $287K reported
- Consistency: 35 of 35 current checks pass
- Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
- Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 5 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 3 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.
- Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.
Key Signals
Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 49/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 36/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 51/100.