The United Council of Human Service

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
942936270
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2020
Forms available
Form 990 2020
Location
San Francisco, CA, USA
Rating
69
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Human Service Organizations

Reported finances

Revenue
$7,741,079
Expenses
$7,682,038
Assets
$8,581,624
Liabilities
$8,641,644

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MARY THOMAS (PRESIDENT)
  • GWEN WESTBROOK (CEO)

People named in this filing

  • ROBERT MCCURN (DIRECTOR)
  • CYNTHIA GONZALES (DIRECTOR)
  • BRIAN BEGUNMD (DIRECTOR)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The organizations mission is to alleviate poverty-related problems suffered by homeless and low-income individuals by providng the necessary support services which include emergency food, clean clothing, showers, counseling, and referral services.

What it reported doing in 2020

Homeless resource center: uchs provides supporting services to eliminate hunger and other poverty-related problems suffered by the homeless population in the sf bay area through its resource center program. During the 2013 fiscal year, uchs provided over 115,000 hot meals at its renowned mother browns dining room. Additionally, emergency shelter and respite services were provided for over 17,000 individuals throughout the year (the organization has the capacity to provide emergency shelter for up to 50 individuals per night). Uchs provides laundry, toilet, and shower facilities, toiletries, locker services, job placement, case management, and counseling at its main resource center. Uchs also provides outreach by informing homeless individuals on the streets of the various services offered by uchs. Uchs has been successful in retaining optimum use and capacity of its facility.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 90% 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.

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: 43
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 88
  • Sustainability: 35
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 44.7%; rating input score 45
  • Program expense ratio: 45%; rating input score 45
  • Fundraising efficiency: $9.05 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 71
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 0.8%; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.12; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 1.01; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 2% per year; rating input score 100; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 16.7% per year; rating input score 100; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 41.6% per year; rating input score 100; 96th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 44.7% of revenue deployed · 45% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $3.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 22 of 22 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2014 to 2020
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 45/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 45/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 27/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 25/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 39/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 5/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.
  • High — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization is not authorized to operate as a charity in California.