Healing Abuse Working for Change Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
042655367
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Salem, MA, USA
Phone
9787448552
Rating
83
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,007,999
Expenses
$2,677,663
Assets
$3,788,072
Liabilities
$767,383

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

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ELISA CASTILLO (PRESIDENT)
  • ERIN TRUEX MSW (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • SARA STANLEY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • SARA STANLEY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $148,728 total reported compensation
  • KRISTIN BARRY (DIRECTOR OF FINANCE): $126,485 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 create social change by taking action against personal and societal patterns of violence and oppression. Hawc provides services and support to victims of domestic violence in 23 cities and towns on Massachusetts' north shore.

What it reported doing in 2024

Education and outreach: hawc provides violence prevention education in schools and in partnership with local youth serving organizations to increase awareness about healthy relationships, warning signs of abuse and explore ways for friends and bystanders to get involved to reduce bullying and aggression.hawc is an important community resource providing education and training on how to support survivors. Hawc frequently provides training for the staff of community partners, such as head start and local public schools. It is hawc's goal to empower other service providers with the tools they need to provide trauma informed care and make referrals to hawc.the organization trains community volunteers and interns who assist in providing hotline support, court advocacy and support group facilitation. Through special events and social media content the organization seeks to raise awareness about domestic violence and social justice initiatives that empower survivors and work to eliminate oppression in all its forms.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 62% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 95% 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 - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 67
  • Transparency & Controls: 94
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 53
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 68.7%; rating input score 69
  • Program expense ratio: 76.5%; rating input score 76
  • Fundraising efficiency: $8.99 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd 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: 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: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 11%; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.41; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.2; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 10.3%; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 5.2% per year; rating input score 100; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.3% per year; rating input score 100; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 3.4% per year; rating input score 100; 26th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 68.7% of revenue deployed · 76.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $149K · 13 people listed
  • Consistency: 36 of 36 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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 34/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 50/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 29/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 44/100.