Veterans Housing Development Corporation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
261177340
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2015
Location
Santa Rosa, CA, USA
Phone
7075782785
Rating
82
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Reported finances

Revenue
$132,490
Expenses
$366,092
Assets
$10,635,691
Liabilities
$10,606,003

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CHRIS JOHNSON (PRESIDENT AND CEO (THRU 8/24))
  • BRAD LONG (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • CHRIS JOHNSON (PRESIDENT AND CEO (THRU 8/24)): $280,560 total reported compensation
  • BRAD LONG (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $89,626 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The specific charitable and public purposes for which the corporation is organized is to support the mission of nation's finest by providing affordable housing - permanent supportive, transitional, rental and ownership - for low income veterans and their families.

What it reported doing in 2024

Windsor veterans village, mather veterans village and bayview heights in eureka are completed projects that are providing comprehensive case management services for all residents. The organization continues development and planning of permanent supportive housing in oroville, shasta lake and mather phase 4.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 98% 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

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 87
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Accountability: 79
  • Sustainability: 33
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 94.8%; rating input score 95
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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: 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: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: -176.3%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 29.05; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 1; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 10.6%; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 3.9% per year; rating input score 100; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 10.7% per year; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 22.9% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 94.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $347K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $281K · 12 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 19 of 19 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2016 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 5 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.

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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 1/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 5/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 28/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization is not authorized to operate as a charity in California.