The Humanities Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
570952289
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Charleston, SC, USA
Phone
8438564120
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Housing Support

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,783,948
Expenses
$2,399,397
Assets
$36,742,481
Liabilities
$10,328,670

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

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Tracy T Doran (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Cheryl Ferraro CPA (Treasurer/Secretary): $219,150 total reported compensation
  • Tracy T Doran (President): $107,569 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 develop the highest quality affordable and workforce housing possible while enhancing the lives of our residents and improving the communities in which we develop through affordability, education and advocacy.

What it reported doing in 2024

Affordable Housing Program: As a non-profit developer, Humanities Foundation plays a crucial role in facilitating affordable housing projects from inception to completion. Our organization serves various roles, ranging from general partner and managing member to developer, allowing us to access funds exclusively available to nonprofit entities. We provide essential financing to projects and collaborate with construction professionals, including engineers, architects, and builders, to realize affordable housing developments. Upon construction completion, Humanities Foundation engages professional management companies to handle property marketing, leasing, and maintenance. Affordable housing encompasses a broad spectrum of income levels and price ranges. What truly defines housing as "affordable" is the rent or mortgage payment relative to an individual or family's income. According to the federal government, rental housing is considered "affordable" if residents pay no more than 30 percent of their income on rent. Mortgage lenders generally evaluate a home's affordability when the mortgage payment does not exceed 35 percent of the borrower's income. In assessing affordability in relation to income, we employ the term "Area Median Income" (AMI), calculated and published annually by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The term "median" indicates that half of all households in the area have income greater than this amount. The Humanities Foundation prioritizes affordable units for individuals with incomes within the 30% to 80% AMI range. This means that residents in our communities earn less than half of the average income compared to the entire regional population. AMI serves as the basis for calculating rental amounts according to the 30% of income standard for affordable housing. We utilize public and private partnerships to ensure that rent remains affordable and that construction and maintenance costs do not place a burden on our residents. Recognizing the need for supportive services, the Humanities Foundation has established a range of strategic partnerships to offer services such as health screenings, health education programs, after-school activities, youth summer camps, meals, on-site food banks, and community gardens. In our housing program, we've undertaken various projects: Magnolia 61: A 60-unit apartment complex designed for seniors aged 55 and older located at 1830 Magwood Drive, Charleston, SC. Hampton West Apartments: A 41-unit apartment development catering to seniors aged 55 and older with incomes at or below 100% of the area median income, situated at 554 Rutledge Avenue, Charleston, SC.Shady Grove Apartments: A 72-unit apartment complex constructed for seniors aged 62 and older with incomes 50% below the area median income, situated at 1725 Savage Road, Charleston, South Carolina. Seven Farms Apartments: A 72-unit apartment community created for families with incomes 50% below the area median income, situated at 305 Seven Farms Drive and Daniel Island Drive, Charleston, South Carolina. Ivy Ridge Apartments: A 72-unit apartment development designed for families with incomes 50% below the area median income, located at 2215 Greenridge Road, North Charleston, South Carolina. Pine Hill Apartments: A 72-unit apartment complex constructed for families with incomes 50% below the area median income, situated at 117 Yellow Jasmine Road, Orangeburg, South Carolina. Grandview Apartments: A 72-unit apartment building designed for seniors with incomes 50% below the area median income, located at 1850 Magwood Road, Charleston, South Carolina. Waterford Village: A 96-unit apartment development catering to families with incomes 50% below the area median income, situated at 61 Waterford Loop, Staunton, Virginia. Seven Farms Village: A 42-unit apartment building constructed for seniors with incomes 50% below the area median income, located at 305 Seven Farms Drive, Charleston, South Carolina. Arbor Hill

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 77% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 93% 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 available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 67
  • Transparency & Controls: 88
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 36
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 65.4%; rating input score 65
  • Program expense ratio: 78.9%; rating input score 79
  • Fundraising efficiency: $10.74 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 55.6%; rating input score 56; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -34.5%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 15.31; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.28; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 13.6%; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 4.3% per year; rating input score 100; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.9% per year; rating input score 100; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.7% per year; rating input score 100; 42nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 65.4% of revenue deployed · 78.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 9 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $1.9M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $219K · 9 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $339K reported
  • Consistency: 35 of 35 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 58 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.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Review — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 56/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 40/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 5/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Whistleblower policy not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 26/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 26/100.