Friends of Joshua House Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
200597719
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Lutz, FL, USA
Phone
8132633469
Rating
81
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Public Foundations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,224,385
Expenses
$1,379,825
Assets
$7,187,499
Liabilities
$851,501

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

Leadership & pay

20 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • DEBORAH GRUNDEL (EXECUTIVE DI): $125,625 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To support abused, abandoned, and neglected children at joshua house by providing a continuum of services to include therapy, case management, residential safe beds, and to sustain these services through resource development, investment, and foundation governance.

What it reported doing in 2024

Joshua house is a haven for abused, abandoned, and neglected children, offering a therapeutic residential care program that provides a protected nurturing, family-like environment for children ages six to seventeen. These children have been removed from their homes due to crisis and many demonstrate behaviors related to complex trauma and have been through multiple foster homes. Friends of joshua house foundation, inc is a 501(c) (3) organization dedicated to developing recourses to improve the quality of life for the children of joshua house and providing direct support for the children of joshua house through the following: -providing safe beds and homes -providing on-site access to therapy and case management. -providing clothing, shoes, hygiene products, school supplies, holiday gifts, healthy food choices (fruits, vegetables, and lean meats), computers, tutors, activities, beds and bedding, furniture, security, and safe, homelike environments for the children. -group volunteer management and individual volunteer development. -building and ground maintenance and repairs and oversight. -staff training and incentives. -safety and emergency management support. -capital improvements and renovations on shelter homes, classrooms, program center, therapy center, and playground, well house, bus stop, and donation center. -provide security services to ensure child safety. 605 children were served this fiscal year in the residential, therapy, and community enrichment programs.

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 76% for direct work, and 24% for grants.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 74
  • Transparency & Controls: 79
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 76
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 59.6%; rating input score 60
  • Program expense ratio: 92.8%; rating input score 93
  • Fundraising efficiency: $161.13 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.1%; rating input score 94; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 54.4%; rating input score 54; 16th 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: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 38%; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 5.21; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.12; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 9.1%; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 13.3% per year; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 14.3% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 17% per year; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 59.6% of revenue deployed · 92.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 19 of 19 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $1.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $126K · 20 people listed
  • Consistency: 34 of 35 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 10 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 10 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.

  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 54/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 33/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 55/100.