Dream Center of Indianapolis Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
863595233
IRS 990 coverage
2022–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Indianapolis, IN, USA
Phone
8128050564
Rating
80
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Temporary Housing

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,559,924
Expenses
$1,774,252
Assets
$1,449,320
Liabilities
$439,171

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MICHAEL WOODS (CEO)
  • CYNTHIA TARBUTTON (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • MICHAEL WOODS (CEO): $106,874 total reported compensation
  • CYNTHIA TARBUTTON (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $50,130 total reported compensation
  • AMY FARROW (TREASURER/SECRETARY): $24,038 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The dream center serves as a resource center focused on providing support to those affected by homelessness, hunger and lack of education through residential and community outreach programs.

What it reported doing in 2025

Holistic self-sufficiency and community impact: beyond employment, the program's greatest accomplishment lies in fostering holistic self-sufficiency and stability for the women and their families. Qualitatively, graduates like jw have expressed personal transformation, stating, "this was the first time i finished and it changed how i see myself." quantifiable social outcomes include 10 clients successfully transitioning off medicaid, which generated an estimated $111,454 in annual taxpayer savings. Furthermore, employer partners like midwest pain & spine and axia women's health have hired moms from both cohort 1 and cohort 2, demonstrating the program's proven capacity to prepare women for meaningful, long-term careers.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 67% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 79% for direct work, and 21% for grants.

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: 76
  • Transparency & Controls: 94
  • Accountability: 77
  • Sustainability: 22
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 85.6%; rating input score 86
  • Program expense ratio: 75.2%; rating input score 75
  • Fundraising efficiency: $8.89 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 31; 31st 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; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 60%; rating input score 60; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -13.7%; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.82; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.3; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 10.2%; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 97.9% per year; rating input score 100; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 27.9% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 25.9% per year; rating input score 100; 86th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 85.6% of revenue deployed · 75.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 5 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $1.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $107K · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 33 of 33 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2022 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 31/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 10/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 37/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 19/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 37/100.