Homes of Hope Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
010772839
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Wray, CO, USA
Phone
9705760789
Rating
68
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Family Services for Adolescent Parents

Reported finances

Revenue
$113,929
Expenses
$108,473
Assets
$79,783
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • William Dunning (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Mark Roche (Director): $43,113 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Homes of Hope is committed to preventing sexual violence. To create a positive future, we empower girls and young women through a comprehensive residential training center. To bring larger change and prevention, Homes of Hope collaborates with others to improve systems in communities and nurtures safety and connection within families.

What it reported doing in 2024

In the past year, Homes of Hope has made significant strides in its mission to combat forced sex, tra? cking, and gender-based violence in Fiji. We are proud to share our top program achievements: We reached over 400 par1cipants across 16 communities through workshops and trainingsessions, equipping them with vital life skills and prac1cal voca1onal training. Our ini1a1ves have addressed immediate vulnerabili1es and laid the groundwork for long-term empowerment. Our residen1al training center involved 32 students and their families with intensive work, empowering them as students and interns to start a new God-led journey. Our focus on educa1on aligns with Fiji's development priori1es and the SustainableDevelopment Goals (SDGs), par1cularly in Quality Educa1on, Gender Equality, and Decent Work. Our programs have begun to shiW community aXtudes towards gender-basedviolence posi1vely. Through targeted awareness campaigns and events, we have engaged various stakeholders to address modern slavery and promote gender equality. These efforts have fostered solidarity and empowered individuals to advocate for their rights. For instance, the "Providing Hope & Protec1ng Girls" project directly impacted approximately 1,000 individuals, re? ec1ng our commitment to fostering dialog on cri1cal social issues and suppor1ng vulnerable populations. As we look to the future, we are excited about the potential to scale up our initiatives and strengthen partnerships with governments and development partners.

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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 86
  • Transparency & Controls: 46
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 43
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 85.7%; rating input score 86
  • Program expense ratio: 90%; rating input score 90
  • Fundraising efficiency: $35.01 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Grant itemization coverage: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 4.8%; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.74; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 39.7%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -8.3% per year; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -3.6% per year; rating input score 0; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4.2% per year; rating input score 100; 44th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 85.7% of revenue deployed · 90% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 3 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $98K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $43K · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 14 of 15 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes foreign activity
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 50/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Independent members within voting members did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 33/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 6/100.