Haymakers for Hope Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
300694643
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Wellesley, MA, USA
Phone
8778295000
Rating
66
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Fund Raising and/or Fund Distribution

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$4,610,827
Expenses
$4,924,496
Assets
$548,136
Liabilities
$387,647

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ANDREW MYERSON (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • ANDREW MYERSON (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $293,500 total reported compensation
  • MARK AVERY (TREASURER, CLERK, DIRECTOR): $218,219 total reported compensation
  • JULIE ANNE KELLY (DIRECTOR, ASSISTANT CLERK): $202,038 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The organization's mission is to raise money and awareness for charities that meet the qualifications as described in section 501(c)(3) through amateur athletic events by developing, organizing, and conducting amateur athletic events and related events.

What it reported doing in 2024

Haymakers for hope's mission is to knockout cancer the only way we know how, by literally fighting for a cure. We give everday men and women the opportunity to fight back against this terrible disease by training for, and competing in charity boxing events to raise money and awareness. To prepare for each event, we combine the efforts of first time amateur boxing participants, local boxing gyms, and volunteers. We hope to help give life saving researchers the resources needed to fully focus their efforts on finding a cure.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 98% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 61% for direct work, and 39% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 71
  • Transparency & Controls: 61
  • Accountability: 66
  • Sustainability: 13
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 81.7%; rating input score 82
  • Program expense ratio: 75.4%; rating input score 75
  • Fundraising efficiency: $0.18 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: 0 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Fail
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Fail
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 98.9%; rating input score 99; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 72.7%; rating input score 73; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 56
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -6.8%; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.11; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.71; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 14.5%; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 11.5% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 13% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7.5% per year; rating input score 100; 47th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 81.7% of revenue deployed · 75.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 11 board members independent · 5 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $3.7M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $294K · 11 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 32 of 33 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 48 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 8 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 1/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 17/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 3/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 13/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 20/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.