Fisher House Michigan

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
812586691
IRS 990 coverage
2017–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-N 2021
Location
Ann Arbor, MI, USA
Phone
3134836543
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,191,219
Expenses
$1,417,044
Assets
$3,315,779
Liabilities
$24,981

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

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ANDY HOVE (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • KATE MELCHER (EXECUTIVE DI): $148,333 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Fisher house Michigan is a not-for-profit organization formed to improve the quality of life of our military members, retirees, veterans, and their families and caregivers. The organization supports the construction and operations of comfort homes built near va medical centers in Michigan, called "zachary and elizabeth m. Fisher houses." the organization works to inform the veteran community, their families, and the general public about fisher houses, and provides necessary support to fisher house operations as needed. Fisher house Michigan presently supports guests and operations at the fisher houses supporting va ann arbor and va detroit, raises awareness with veterans and caregivers, and supports efforts to expand our programs in Michigan.

What it reported doing in 2025

Fisher house Michigan granted 500,000 to fisher house foundation in 2025. Additionally, fhm supports the ongoing needs of families staying in the va ann arbor and va detroit fisher houses. While veteran loved ones are supporting their hospitalized veteran, fhm grants the va ann arbor fisher house and the va detroit fisher house monthly funds for groceries, holiday meals, small repairs, local transportation, wellness kits, hotel stays for guests when the fisher houses are full, and more. The fhm board of directors is committed to ensuring that veteran families will incur no out-of-pocket expenses related to their stay in a Michigan fisher house, as fisher house Michigan fills the gaps in any supportive services the va provides.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 98% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 89% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - 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 some filed totals do not add up.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 51
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 96
  • Sustainability: 75
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 33.3%; rating input score 33
  • Program expense ratio: 72.1%; rating input score 72
  • Fundraising efficiency: $38.17 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: 55.6%; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.34; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 10.5%; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 7.5% per year; rating input score 100; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 10.9% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 15% per year; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 33.3% of revenue deployed · 72.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 15 of 16 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $148K · 16 people listed
  • Consistency: 28 of 29 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2017 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 3 filed related-organization links
  • 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: Mission deployment rate scored 33/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 32/100.