HOPE 4 Youth

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
461626500
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Coon Rapids, MN, USA
Phone
7633232066
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Youth Development Programs

Reported finances

Revenue
$5,526,376
Expenses
$2,886,067
Assets
$5,780,421
Liabilities
$55,013

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

17 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • LaChelle Williams (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • LaChelle Williams (Executive Director): $157,108 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To provide pathways to end youth homelessness.

What it reported doing in 2025

HOPE 4 Youth Center: The Center serves as the primary access point for youth experiencing homelessness, offering crisis intervention, basic needs support, and case management that connects youth to housing, education, and employment resources. In 2025, the Center served 878 youth, with 85% engaged in case management. Through a partnership with Hope for the Community, youth received 33,768 pounds of food valued at $168,839.In 2025, HOPE 4 Youth strengthened its housing stability and youth-engagement efforts by providing more than $119,000 in short-term rental assistance through FHPAP, Aid to Counties, and MN Housing Support, while also helping 19 newly housed youth obtain essential household items through Bridging. The Youth Advisory Council took off with six youth participating in monthly meetings, helping shape program improvements and building leadership skills while receiving modest stipends supported by the Youth Intervention Program grant. Additionally, HOPE 4 Youth used one-time state funding to purchase a new facility that will expand program capacity and enhance collaboration with 204 Program Partners, with an anticipated opening in early 2027.

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 61% for direct work, and 39% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of total spending goes to programs. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 60
  • Transparency & Controls: 83
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 75
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 45.1%; rating input score 45
  • Program expense ratio: 85.8%; rating input score 86
  • Fundraising efficiency: $21.46 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 75th 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: 47.8%; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5.4%; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 14.6% per year; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 13.2% per year; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 10.7% per year; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 45.1% of revenue deployed · 85.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 14 of 14 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $2.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $157K · 17 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 36 of 36 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2013 to 2025
  • 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.

Key Signals

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

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 45/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 57/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 54/100.