Southern California Housing Collaborative

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
262583215
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2012
Location
Chula Vista, CA, USA
Phone
8589228850
Rating
65
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Housing Development, Construction, Management

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,237,428
Expenses
$470,140
Assets
$4,801,879
Liabilities
$886,812

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • NATHAN SCHMID (Executive Dir.): $124,899 total reported compensation
  • GLORIA SANDOVAL (Secretary): $60,360 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To locate and secure affordable housing opportunities for persons with developmental disabilities.

What it reported doing in 2024

Schc is under contract with the san diego regional center (sdrc) to facilitate placement of persons with developmental disabilities into safe, affordable housing. Usually, consumers of sdrc services rely on ssi as their sole menas of support. With high rental costs in san diego, these residents often have few housing options, and many live in substandard or unsafe conditions. Schc is a resource for these residents to find affordable and secure housing. Schc also works as a clearing house for the public and developers of publically subsidized housing, sharing information regarding the housing needs in the san diego-imperial county region. Schc works closely with sdrc social workers to secure appropriate housing for their clients.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 92% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
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 - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 47
  • Transparency & Controls: 83
  • Accountability: 74
  • Sustainability: 76
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 48.9%; rating input score 49
  • Program expense ratio: 58%; rating input score 58
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 62%; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 10.21; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.18; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 39.4%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -23% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7% per year; rating input score 100; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 14.9% per year; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 48.9% of revenue deployed · 58% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $272K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $125K · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 22 of 23 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 12 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.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 58/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 4/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 33/100.