Southern California Housing Rights Center

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
952572642
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Los Angeles, CA, USA
Phone
8183979310
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Civil Rights

Reported finances

Revenue
$4,896,330
Expenses
$4,696,526
Assets
$7,640,847
Liabilities
$2,424,514

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

Leadership & pay

20 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Dennis Perez (Board President)
  • Alisa Schlesinger (Board Vice-President)
  • Chansela Al-Mansour (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Chansela Al-Mansour (Executive Director): $266,247 total reported compensation
  • Javier Beltran (Deputy Director): $180,389 total reported compensation
  • Danny Batalla (Financial Director): $154,024 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Fair housing monitoring outreach and education housing rights training counseling and case analysis. Have several grants to provide these services to the public on behalf of several city jurisdiction including the City and County of Los Angeles and the County of Ventura.

What it reported doing in 2024

Form 990Part III4d The Housing Rights Center have twenty four 24 other smaller passthrough contracts with other Southern California cities utilizing CDBG funds to provide similar fair housing services to community residents. The organization have provided assistance to individual families from these cities with housing concerns involving potential discrimination issues conducted investigations provided mediations outreach and education programs and other related activities to promote fair housing.

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 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 available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 84
  • Transparency & Controls: 61
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 44
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 92.8%; rating input score 93
  • Program expense ratio: 96.7%; rating input score 97
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 13th 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; 63rd 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: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 4.1%; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.63; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.32; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 18.6%; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -78.8% per year; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -78.4% per year; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 1.6% per year; rating input score 100; 18th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 92.8% of revenue deployed · 96.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 14 of 14 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $4.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $266K · 20 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 44 of 45 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2020 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 48/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Form 990 shared with the board not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 55/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 14/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 33/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.