Beacon of Hope Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
582191344
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2016
Forms available
Form 990 2016
Location
Atlanta, GA, USA
Phone
4048761779
Rating
86
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Child Day Care

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,415,062
Expenses
$1,709,233
Assets
$154,908
Liabilities
$154,908

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • LYDIA MEREDITH (CEO/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • LYDIA MEREDITH (CEO/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $42,111 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The mission of beacon of hope is to strengthen families and communities through education, human services (family empowerment and support), community development (including affordable housing), and advocacy in the old fourth ward and surrounding communities.

What it reported doing in 2016

See schedule o.education: to provide accredited, accessible, and affordable early childhood and school-aged (out of school time) educational services to the children and youth of the old fourth ward and surrounding pockets of poverty throughout metro atlanta - through evidence-based instructional programs designed to promote child and youth development in all developmental domains - ensuring that children and youth are successful in school and in life.family empowerment: to consistently provide effective services that strengthens families and encourages successful living - personally and within the community.- maintain safe, healthy, and economically-viable environments for residents; and- address the various needs of the community in an effort to improve the quality of life through the provision of opportunities related to: employment, fair and quality housing, financial planning, life skills, violence and drug prevention/intervention.

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 90% 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. Expenses are high relative to revenue and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 99
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 13
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 96.3%; rating input score 96
  • Fundraising efficiency: $4,412.22 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 100; 100th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • 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: -20.8%; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.09; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 1; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 2.5%; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -0.3% per year; rating input score 0; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -1.1% per year; rating input score 0; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -37.2% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 96.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $1.6M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $42K · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 29 of 30 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2012 to 2016
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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: Operating margin scored 7/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 4/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 7/100.