Hidden in Plain Sight
Legal name: Hips- Hidden in Plain Sight
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 933712125
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2025–2025
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2025, Form 990-N 2023
- Location
- Detroit, MI, USA
- Phone
- 0000000000
- Rating
- 71
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Developmentally Disabled Centers
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $10,000
- Expenses
- $2,500
- Assets
- $9,500
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
1 person listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Kamry Steger (Executive Director)
People named in this filing
- Kamry Steger (Executive 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-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Our mission is to break cycles of invisibility and inequity by creating accessible solutions for underserved and marginalized communities. Through inclusive development, advocacy, education, and resource delivery, we uplift individuals and families who are often left behind.
What it reported doing in 2025
Hidden In Plain Sight conducted 11 food drives during the year serving an estimated 11002200 Detroit residents Programming was entirely volunteer-led and focused on underserved neighborhoods on Detroits east side The organization maintained active community outreach sites and distributed essential resources to families in need throughout the year
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% 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.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and revenue comfortably covers expenses. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and reported officer compensation is a large share of total spending, which may reflect staffing concentration.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 53
- Transparency & Controls: 100
- Sustainability: 83
- Growth: NotEnoughData
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 25%; rating input score 25
- Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 75%; rating input score 96; 96th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.8; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: Limited
- Asset growth: Limited
Details
- What they do: 7 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
- Where the money goes: 25% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 1 people listed
- Consistency: 9 of 9 current checks pass
- Schedules: 3 filed schedules
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 25/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.