Domestic Violence Project Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
341263226
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Canton, OH, USA
Phone
3304452000
Rating
81
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,161,066
Expenses
$2,623,602
Assets
$2,023,300
Liabilities
$169,092

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

Leadership & pay

19 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • RANDI SMUCKLER (PRESIDENT)
  • DENISE PREUSSER (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • JULIE DONANT (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • JULIE DONANT (CEO): $105,734 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Domestic violence project, inc. Promotes awareness and provides emergency and support services to all those impacted by domestic violence.

What it reported doing in 2024

Outreach and legal advocacy supportive services provides justice systems advocacy and support for survivors of domestic violence. Clients are assisted through the court process and given safety planning on information about community resources, crime victims' compensation, and the Ohio victim information notification network (vine). Legal advocates help survivors navigate civil and criminal courts and assist them in understanding legal rights, attending court hearings, filing criminal protection orders, speaking with the prosecutors and police, and reinforce safety planning with shelter residents as well as with clients who access services exclusively through the courts. A partnership with cleveland clinic mercy hospital and aultman hospital offers forensic evidence collection for clients, aiding in prosecution of abusers. During the fiscal year, legal advocacy staff served 852 clients.although no longer a separate department, dvpi provides education services to law enforcement, legal/judicial professionals, educators, medical personnel, and the community at large. During the fiscal year, 323 individuals received domestic violence awareness training through dvpi services.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 68% for direct work, and 32% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

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 expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 73
  • Transparency & Controls: 94
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 26
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 83.1%; rating input score 83
  • Program expense ratio: 68.3%; rating input score 68
  • Fundraising efficiency: $9.91 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd 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: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -21.4%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.77; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.08; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4%; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 1.4% per year; rating input score 100; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.3% per year; rating input score 100; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -2.8% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 83.1% of revenue deployed · 68.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 18 of 18 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $1.8M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $106K · 19 people listed
  • Consistency: 35 of 35 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 37/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 6/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 29/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.