A Helping Hand C/o Carol Woods

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
561923835
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2020
Forms available
Form 990 2020
Location
Chapel Hill, NC, USA
Phone
9194035555
Rating
83
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Personal Social Services

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,282,198
Expenses
$1,084,917
Assets
$220,303
Liabilities
$96,649

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JENNIFER ASHLEY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • JENNIFER ASHLEY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $71,086 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

A helping hand is a private, non-profit organization, established in North Carolina during 1995. Ahh is committed to helping older adults and individuals with disabilities remain as independent as possible, for as long as possible.

What it reported doing in 2020

First accomplishment mobility.who is served: ahh is unique to the triangle, the only locally founded non-profit home care agency in the area. We serve around 300 clients annually providing hands-on homecare, companionship, door-through-door transportation, information, and advocacy. The average age of clients served is 75. Our agency operates on a sliding fee scale. More than 26 percent of our current clients are unable to pay a cost-share and depend on volunteers or donations to fund services. Those needing volunteer services generally have no family support and are struggling at incomes at, or less than 150 percent of the poverty level. Ahh also provides volunteer support to tired family caregivers in need of time to rejuvenate. In addition, we partner with local faith-based organizations as well as other agencies within the senior care safety net.objectives of the program: ahh provides the following to underserved older adults and individuals with disabilities: a) access to health care, b) escorted transportation for shopping, running errands, or other needs, c) safe home environment, d) respite for caregivers, e) quality of life interaction and opportunity to maintain independence. At the same time, we are educating future health care providers on the challenges faced by older adults and, hopefully, inspiring more careers in geriatrics. Ahh's pre-health service learning program is our greatest resource for serving those who cannot afford the help they desperately need. Unpaid interns agree to attend 20 hours of training in geriatric care and volunteer 120 hours with clients. Despite the economy, we have three times as many pre-medicine, nursing, social work, psychology, o/t, p/t, and public health students seeking unpaid internships than we can accommodate. Last year, we sponsored three intern classes (fall, spring and summer) and 80 clients were served by the pre-health interns, who contributed approximately 5,912 volunteer hours. They provided transportation to outpatient surgery, routine medical appointments, helped with errands and in-home assistance.funding: we are seeking new partnerships with foundations interested in workforce enhancement, person-centered training for medical students and those with a passion for making communities age and dementia friendly, as well as other rtp businesses that are interested in incubating social enterprise models focused on senior care. In addition, we are training students to make presentations in the community in order to reach more possible donors. Earned income through the private pay program continues to increase as we have partnered with carol woods to provide hands-on homecare.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 61% 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. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 84
  • Transparency & Controls: 86
  • Accountability: 81
  • Sustainability: 39
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 82.6%; rating input score 83
  • Program expense ratio: 97.7%; rating input score 98
  • Fundraising efficiency: $16.82 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 85.7%; rating input score 86; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 15.4%; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.2; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.44; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 6.6%; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 12.4% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8% per year; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.2% per year; rating input score 100; 44th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 82.6% of revenue deployed · 97.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 7 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $71K · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 26 of 27 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2009 to 2020
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 49/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 7/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 21/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 53/100.