Grace House
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 933557541
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2023–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2024
- Location
- Las Vegas, NV, USA
- Phone
- 4242990643
- Rating
- 38
- Verdict
- REVIEW
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Temporary Housing
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $24,059
- Expenses
- $21,759
- Assets
- $2,900
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
3 people listed
People named in this filing
- Ray Jung (Board Member)
- Seemi Jung (Board Member)
- Ai Sook Park (Board Member)
Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Grace House is a house where supporting people who need help, this could be a person with a shelter, person with substance use disorder to get treatment, this is why hospital is there in grace house, Grace House wants to be a House for people who don't get lots of attention, people who need help but don't know where to go. people like homeless population where they don't know how to go back to where they call home. in homeless population, Substance use disorder, mental disorder is another reason lead them to homelessness. As Grace House We want to cut that vicious cycle where let people out of street and give them second chance. Grace House is not just a hospital or shelter for that reason. that's why we call it not shelter nor hospital. Grace House offering treatment and post care with shelter and job training so that they have second chance, the life that they wish for.
What it reported doing in 2024
Grace House is providing mental health hospital services to the homeless population in Las Vegas, Nevada along with providing shelters, food, job training, education, and post-care programs such as job and housing placement.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 100% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- Distribution model
- Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.
The verdict
REVIEW - The filed numbers largely add up and revenue has grown recently. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 0
- Transparency & Controls: 82
- Sustainability: 47
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
- Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 9.6%; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.13; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -200% per year; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 66.9% per year; rating input score 100; 98th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 131.4% per year; rating input score 100; 99th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
- Consistency: 8 of 9 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 1 filed schedules
- Filing history: 2 filing years from 2023 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- 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.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part III transfer expenses within program total did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 13/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.
- Review — Grant Readiness: SAM / OFAC restrictions: this organization returned a name match close enough to need a human check before a grant is released.