Three Rivers Housing Corporation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
311356040
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2014
Forms available
Form 990 2014
Location
The Plains, OH, USA
Rating
59
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Housing Development, Construction, Management

Reported finances

Revenue
$181,379
Expenses
$287,784
Assets
$2,856,653
Liabilities
$1,250,728

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JAMES SALYER (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • BARBARA CONOVER (EXEC. DIR.)
  • EVEN WEBB (TRUSTEE)
  • JAMES RICHARDSON (TRUSTEE)

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 2014. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To provide housing opportunities to individuals.

What it reported doing in 2014

To provide low cost housing opportunities to the disadvantaged.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 80% 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

MIXED - 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: 40
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 64
  • Sustainability: 39
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 53.1%; rating input score 53
  • Program expense ratio: 33.5%; rating input score 33
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: 1 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 14
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -58.7%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 9.93; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.44; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -13.2% per year; rating input score 0; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -3.6% per year; rating input score 0; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 0.7% per year; rating input score 100; 42nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 53.1% of revenue deployed · 33.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 1 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $96K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 20 of 20 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2013 to 2014
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 53/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 33/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 4/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 17/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.