Clay & Oak Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 934582887
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2025–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025
- Location
- La Grange, KY, USA
- Phone
- 5026493505
- Rating
- 47
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Rape Victim Services
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $319,716
- Expenses
- $91,891
- Assets
- $244,746
- Liabilities
- $8,398
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
9 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- ASHLEY HOUKOM (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- ASHLEY HOUKOM (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $12,000 total reported compensation
- SARAH HOLLADAY (CHIEF BRAND OFFICER): $12,000 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Clay & oak is committed to glorifying god by providing safety, community, and biblical discipleship for women who have experienced human trafficking or sexual exploitation.
What it reported doing in 2025
We provide a long-term residential facility with programming that includes access to therapeutic programs encompassing medical, spiritual, mental, and emotional care to female victims.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 98% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Member-benefit provider. The nonprofit used 90% of its reported program spending for member benefits.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
The verdict
MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 11
- Transparency & Controls: 79
- Accountability: 77
- Sustainability: 70
- Growth: NotEnoughData
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 7.4%; rating input score 7
- Program expense ratio: 20.3%; rating input score 20
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
- Compensation committee: Pass
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: Limited
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 4 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 44
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 71.3%; rating input score 96; 96th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.66; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 26.1%; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: Limited
- Asset growth: Limited
Details
- Where the money goes: 7.4% of revenue deployed · 20.3% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 4 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $19K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $12K · 9 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 18 of 19 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
- 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: Mission deployment rate scored 7/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 20/100.
- Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 8 not reported.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 13/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 30/100.