Helpmate Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
561276293
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Asheville, NC, USA
Phone
8282542968
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Family Violence Shelters

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$9,710,783
Expenses
$3,620,872
Assets
$16,554,241
Liabilities
$3,846,224

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

Leadership & pay

19 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • APRIL BURGESS-JOHNSON (EXECUTIVE DI): $98,296 total reported compensation
  • CATHERINE SHORE (FINANCE DIRE): $88,901 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Our mission is to work with our community to eliminate abuse and fear by providing safety, shelter, and support for the people who have been victimized by domestic violence.

What it reported doing in 2024

Crisis stabilization: helpmate provided critical and life-saving services to 3,486 victims of domestic violence, including emergency shelter, crisis hotline, lethality assessment, safety planning, counseling, case management, court advocacy, system-advocacy and education. Helpmate provided intake and supportive services at the buncombe county family justice center, a one-stop, comprehensive service location for victims seeking safety. Helpmate responded to 3,185 crisis calls and helped survivors form 15,893 safety plans. In addition, helpmate providedemergency shelter to 210 adults and children for 6,248 safe bed nights. Helpmate provided specialized child and family advocacy and children's services to 795 children impacted by domestic violence.

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 78% for direct work, and 22% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 55
  • Transparency & Controls: 94
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 80
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 32.1%; rating input score 32
  • Program expense ratio: 85%; rating input score 85
  • Fundraising efficiency: $54.99 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 80; 80th 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: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 62.7%; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.57; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.23; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5.2%; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 12.4% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 17.3% per year; rating input score 100; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 16.8% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 32.1% of revenue deployed · 85% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 16 of 16 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $3.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $98K · 19 people listed
  • Consistency: 31 of 32 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 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.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 32/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 40/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 52/100.