Bridge of Hope Harrisburg Area

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
510646249
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2016, Form 990-N 2007
Location
Harrisburg, PA, USA
Phone
7176355957
Rating
80
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Human Service Organizations
Affiliation
Christianity

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$259,996
Expenses
$348,781
Assets
$93,988
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • KEVIN LUTZ (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • KEVIN LUTZ (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $81,743 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To end and prevent homelessness for single mothers and their children in cumberland, dauphin and york counties of Pennsylvania, with professional case-management support, and the assistance of trained mentoring volunteer groups from local church congregations.

What it reported doing in 2024

Bridge of hope harrisburg area provides help to single mothers and their children who are homeless or at risk of being homeless. The help they provide is rental assistance, emergency assistance, professionally trained program staff who provide stability, guidance, budgeting and financial guidance and referral to other appropriate services. The program staff also work with trained volunteer mentor groups to help provide the single mothers additional support with the goal of establishing safe and sustainable housing and future independence. The normal length of involvement with these single mothers is 18-24 months. During the fiscal period covered by this return, 15 single mothers and their families were served by bridge of hope harrisburg area.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 82% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 74% for direct work, and 26% for grants.

The verdict

STRONG - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 69
  • Transparency & Controls: 94
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 19
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 84%; rating input score 84
  • Program expense ratio: 62.5%; rating input score 62
  • Fundraising efficiency: $3.82 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 80th 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: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • 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: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -34.1%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.27; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 23.4%; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 8.7% per year; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.3% per year; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6.9% per year; rating input score 100; 55th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 84% of revenue deployed · 62.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $218K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $82K · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 25 of 25 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2020 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 17/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 8/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 15/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 16/100.