Hopkins County Community Action Network Inc Dba Canhelp

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
752915186
IRS 990 coverage
2017–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Sulphur Springs, TX, USA
Phone
9038859797
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Health, General and Financing

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,013,110
Expenses
$949,430
Assets
$666,249
Liabilities
$340,175

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

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • HAROLD NASH (PRESIDENT)
  • ASHLEY LEWIS (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • BRIAN CRUMP (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • BRIAN CRUMP (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $80,483 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Canhelp offers programs and training to those who want to become financially self-sufficient, provides rent, utility, food & health items and other basic needs to those experiencing crises, and as well as information and referral services to those who call 2-1-1 Texas. Canhelp also houses a 10,000 square foot thrift store run by dedicated staff and volunteers.

What it reported doing in 2025

Aid to individualscitizen assistance - in 2025, we provided approximately $102,000 in assistance to hopkins county residents for housing, utilities, medications, and travel.back to school fair - hopkins county back to school fair is an event to serve low-income families within hopkins county. We provided approximately 450+ backpacks with supplies to children in 2025.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 92% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 89% 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 the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 73
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 73
  • Sustainability: 39
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 79%; rating input score 79
  • Program expense ratio: 84.5%; rating input score 84
  • Fundraising efficiency: $2.3 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 88.9%; rating input score 89; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: 6.3%; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.7; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.51; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 8.5%; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 4.4% per year; rating input score 100; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8.2% per year; rating input score 100; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.5% per year; rating input score 100; 37th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 79% of revenue deployed · 84.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 9 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $802K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $80K · 9 people listed
  • Consistency: 30 of 31 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2017 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 6/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 48/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 33/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule M noncash within contributions did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 12/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 42/100.