Emma's House Bitterroot Valley - Children's Advocacy Center
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 205484868
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2012–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2011
- Location
- Hamilton, MT, USA
- Phone
- 4063637216
- Rating
- 83
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Child Abuse, Prevention
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $492,525
- Expenses
- $491,980
- Assets
- $852,850
- Liabilities
- $169,525
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
12 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- VALERIE WIDMER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
- CHRISTIAN PRUITT (PRESIDENT)
- KELLY HANLEY (VICE PRESIDENT)
Highest reported compensation
- VALERIE WIDMER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $108,097 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
A facility-based program where children begin healing from the trauma of abuse and neglect.
What it reported doing in 2024
Emma's house provides a safe, child-friendly facility for children and families to talk to professionals about child abuse and neglect. Emma's house coordinates with medical and mental health providers, social workers, and prosecutors to streamline the investigative process and reduce trauma by offering specialized care in trauma treatment. In addition, emma's house provides outreach and prevention education to promote awareness about the impact of trauma on children and community.we serve all of ravalli county and have partnerships with the department of health and human services, child protection services, the county attorney's office, ravalli county sheriff's department and all of the police departments in the county. We also do courtesy interviews for other states and counties. There are 750 cacs across the united states accredited by the national children's alliance. Emma's house is one of six cacs in Montana and is the only one in Montana that is not associated with a hospital or any other agency.to understand what a children's advocacy center (cac) is, you must understand what children face without one. Without a cac, the child may end up having to tell the worst story of his or her life over and over again, to doctors, cops, lawyers, therapists, investigators, judges, and others. They may have to talk about that traumatic experience in a police station where they think they might be in trouble, or may be asked the wrong questions by a well-meaning teacher or other adult that could hurt the case against the abuser.when police or child protective services believe a child is being abused, the child is brought to the cac--a safe, child-focused environment--by a caregiver or other "safe" adult. At the cac, the child tells their story once to a trained interviewer who knows the right questions to ask in a way that does not not retraumatize the child. Then, a team that includes medical professionals, law enforcement, mental health, prosecution, child protective services, victim advocacy, and other professionals make decisions together about how to help the child based on the interview. Cacs offer therapy and medical exams, plus courtroom preparation, victim advocacy, case management, and other services. This is called the multidisciplinary team (mdt) response and is a core part of the work of cacs.specific services provided include but are not limited to forensic interviews, medical exams specific to child abuse allegations, crisis intervention and counseling for children and their families, victim advocacy in the criminal justice system, assistance in filing claims with the Montana crime victims compensation program, community outreach and education, and referrals to community support and social service. Emma's house added acute medical services in july 2024.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 83% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% 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.
- 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: 77
- Transparency & Controls: 92
- Accountability: 90
- Sustainability: 39
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 80.8%; rating input score 81
- Program expense ratio: 80.9%; rating input score 81
- Fundraising efficiency: $12.94 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 46; 46th 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: Limited
- 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: 0.1%; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.73; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.2; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 22%; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 7.8% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 9.4% per year; rating input score 100; 70th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 11% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 80.8% of revenue deployed · 80.9% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $398K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $108K · 12 people listed
- Consistency: 28 of 28 current checks pass
- Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
- Filing history: 13 filing years from 2012 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
- 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.
- Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.
Key Signals
Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 46/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 40/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
- Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 55/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 17/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 20/100.