Hearts for Moms Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
821615669
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2017
Location
West Palm Beach, FL, USA
Rating
69
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Support N.E.C.

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,179,746
Expenses
$1,150,645
Assets
$567,359
Liabilities
$707

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

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Angela Ball (CEO)

People named in this filing

  • Dwight Jacobsen (Director)
  • Linda Koldenhoven (Director)
  • Mary K Morales (Director)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

Hearts for Mom was created in response to the overwhelming challenges faced by single mothers and their children - challenges that often leave families vulnerable to the poverty, instability, and isolation. To address these needs, we offer a comprehensive three-phase program that coaches the moms to set goals (financial, educational/career, personal, physical and/or mental health and/or spiritual) so they can thrive and become self-sufficient. Hearts for Moms also developed the Hearts for Kids initiative to address issues and help children of the moms thrive.

What it reported doing in 2025

In response to the growing crisis caused by the high cost of living we offer one of the fastest solutions to preventing homelessness - by subsidizing housing and other basic needs to help stabilize families and keep them together. In 2024 Hearts for Moms has subsidized rent and basic needs for 34 Moms and 64 children (98 individuals served). The housing program helps cover rent, utilities, groceries and furnishings. Our basic needs program provides diapers, wipes, formula, furnishings, clothing, medical and dental services as well as strollers and car seats.$258,497.16

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 45% for direct work, and 55% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. The filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 58
  • Transparency & Controls: 70
  • Accountability: 88
  • Sustainability: 43
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 61.9%; rating input score 62
  • Program expense ratio: 63.4%; rating input score 63
  • Fundraising efficiency: $6.16 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 86.7%; rating input score 87; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 35.2%; rating input score 35; 31st 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 71
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 2.5%; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.49; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 35.7% per year; rating input score 100; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 24.6% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 20.6% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 61.9% of revenue deployed · 63.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $729K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 9 people listed
  • Consistency: 29 of 31 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2020 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 35/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 21/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 38/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 24/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.