Helping Hands of Cass County

Legal name: Helping Hands of Cass County Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
382663969
IRS 990 coverage
2024–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2023
Location
Cassopolis, Michigan, United States
Phone
(269) 445-8104
Rating
67
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$220,942
Expenses
$187,782
Assets
$307,589
Liabilities
$2,184

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

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Joan Murphy (President)
  • Leigh Goyings (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Tina Grice (Coordinator): $26,933 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Serve the economically challenged who live in Cass County and help them bridge the gap.

What it reported doing in 2024

Helping Hands Food Pantry. About 3,600 families and/or individuals received food pantry services during the year. A pantry manager was hired for the first time this year to adopt a more relational approach and provide information on services available. The pantry space expanded so users could select a greater variety of food products. Pantry use was up nearly 60% compared to 2023. Helping Hands is involved with other food programs as follows: Feeding America Truck (reaching 1,938 families), The Emergency Food Assistance Program (reaching 331 families), and Senior Commodities (reaching 652 families). Helping Hands is also involved with the Bread of Life Charity Program.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 64% for direct work, and 36% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 73
  • Transparency & Controls: 62
  • Accountability: 65
  • Sustainability: 56
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 77.1%; rating input score 77
  • Program expense ratio: 90.5%; rating input score 91
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 87.5%; rating input score 88; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 0%; rating input score 0; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 15%; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.64; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 14.3%; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 18.9% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 17.9% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 6 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 77.1% of revenue deployed · 90.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 15 of 16 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $170K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $27K · 16 people listed
  • Consistency: 43 of 45 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 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: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 54/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 25/100.
  • 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.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 48/100.