Hope Floats Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
812681890
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2019, Form 990-N 2018
Location
Simsbury, CT, USA
Phone
7193981938
Rating
66
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Swimming & Other Water Recreation

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$745,339
Expenses
$596,785
Assets
$569,651
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Kristin Mabrouk (Executive Director)
  • Dave Tonnesen (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Kristin Mabrouk (Executive Director): $100,000 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Hope Floats Foundation partners with high quality swim schools to provide swim lesson scholarships for children whose families can not afford to pay. Drowning is a leading cause of death for children, and participation in formal swimming lessons reduces the risk of drowning by 88 percent. Our mission is to make sure that all children have access to learning this essential life skill, and to partner with swim schools to ensure they have the resources to make this happen in their own local communities.

What it reported doing in 2024

Hope Floats awarded 1,470 children with swim lessons scholarships in 2024, providing a total of 17,640 lessons to children from low-income families or in foster care placement at swim schools in their own community. Hope Floats partnered with more than 150 swim schools across 40 states to build a simple, sustainable way for swim schools to further serve their communities.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 99% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 91% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 65
  • Transparency & Controls: 41
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 61
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 62.1%; rating input score 62
  • Program expense ratio: 77.5%; rating input score 77
  • Fundraising efficiency: $10.81 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Grant itemization coverage: 0.1%; rating input score 0; 25th 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: 19.9%; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.95; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 16.8%; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 33.1% per year; rating input score 100; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 25.1% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 27.6% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 62.1% of revenue deployed · 77.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $462K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $100K · 10 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 25 of 26 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2020 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 40/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 41/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 19/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.