Assistance League of Metro Columbus

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
311593952
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2024
Location
Worthington, OH, USA
Phone
6144048709
Rating
81
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$75,000
Expenses
$65,677
Assets
$111,802
Liabilities
$8,535

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

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CAROL MORGAN (PRESIDENT)
  • JAN PAGE (PRESIDENT-EL)

People named in this filing

  • LUCILLE LATHER (MARKETING DI)
  • ELAINE NORDSTROM (TREASURER)
  • MARTHA HILDITCH (RECORDING SE)

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

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

Overview

Mission

To provide programs and services throughout central Ohio meeting individual and community needs that are not provided by other organizations. To evaluate and fulfill unmet needs within our community.

What it reported doing in 2024

Assault surivivor kits: provides clothing and personal hygiene kits to survivors of physical and sexual abuse. Children are also provided with comforting teddy bears and books during their intake interviews. Clothing and household items are provided to a shelter for runaway teenagers. 1,279 recipients.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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. Liabilities are high compared with assets and reported officer compensation is a large share of total spending, which may reflect staffing concentration.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 81
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 57
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 77.5%; rating input score 77
  • Program expense ratio: 87.5%; rating input score 87

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 12.4%; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.7; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.08; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 6.2% per year; rating input score 100; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 0.5% per year; rating input score 100; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 0.1% per year; rating input score 100; 39th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 77.5% of revenue deployed · 87.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 4 filed program accomplishments · $57K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 9 people listed
  • Consistency: 7 of 7 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • 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.

  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 19/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.