Helping and Lending Outreach Support

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
200858549
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
North Charleston, SC, USA
Phone
8439909570
Rating
85
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Insurance Providers

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,624,425
Expenses
$2,385,247
Assets
$1,329,137
Liabilities
$145,644

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

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ERIC STALLINGS (PRESIDENT)
  • ERICKA PLATER (VICE-PRESIDENT)
  • JED DEWS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • JED DEWS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $139,921 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 mission of halos is to equip kinship givers for success, provide resources that provide support for safe and thriving children, and advocate for a kin-first South Carolina

What it reported doing in 2024

Kinship programs: the halos kinship care program provides direct services to families in which a grandparent, other relative, or someone close to a child steps in to raise them when a parent cannot do so safely. In 2007, halos began the first kinship care program in South Carolina, based on evidence of need and the lack of resources for this large and growing population of families. Halos offers a range of opportunities for caregivers to gain support, meet critical needs, and connect with their peers and community.the main component of the program is a service referred to as navigation, which is the label commonly used to define programs that connect kinship caregivers to referrals and resources needed to promote the safety, permanency and well-being of children in their care. Other services in this program include: long-term case management using the success coach model, virtual and in-person support groups, mentorship that elevates the voices of caregivers with lived experience, caregiver education, access to critical goods (such as beds, cribs, diapers, clothing, etc.), and special drive initiatives (summer camp, back to school, holidays) that address the barriers kinship families often encounter.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 72% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 78% for direct work, and 22% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 84
  • Transparency & Controls: 85
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 20
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 77.4%; rating input score 77
  • Fundraising efficiency: $5.73 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.4%; rating input score 94; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 78.9%; rating input score 79; 34th 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: -46.8%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.56; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.11; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5.9%; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 13% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 10% per year; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 15% per year; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 77.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 14 of 14 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $1.8M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $140K · 15 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $190K reported
  • Consistency: 33 of 34 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.
  • 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 21/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 3/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 26/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 41/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 51/100.