House of Heroes Chattahoochee

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
264137613
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Columbus, GA, USA
Phone
7065697011
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard

Reported finances

Revenue
$259,549
Expenses
$225,324
Assets
$244,888
Liabilities
$2,977

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

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Joshua L McQuien (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Joshua L McQuien (Executive Director): $55,385 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 improve the living conditions of military and public safety veterans and/or their spouses. To recognize and honor veterans and their spouses who have faithfully and sacrificially served their country. And to encourage leadership and service, team building and volunteerism.

What it reported doing in 2025

House of Heroes Chattahoochee Valley improves the safety, accessibility, and living conditions of military veterans, first responders, and their spouses who are unable to maintain their homes due to age, disability, financial hardship, or other life circumstances. During 2025, staff members reviewed 61 homeowner applications, conducted on-site assessments, coordinated project planning, and organized volunteer work teams to complete 38 critical home repairs and maintenance services. Repairs included exterior painting, wheelchair ramp construction, yard restoration, debris removal, flooring and porch repairs, accessibility improvements, and other essential safety-related projects. Project leaders supervised community volunteer teams while House of Heroes Chattahoochee Valley provided project coordination, materials, support services, and financial assistance necessary to complete repairs that helped homeowners remain in safe and dignified living environments.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 89% 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 a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 66
  • Transparency & Controls: 94
  • Accountability: 74
  • Sustainability: 48
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 65.6%; rating input score 66
  • Program expense ratio: 74.6%; rating input score 75
  • Fundraising efficiency: $11.7 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 13.2%; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.09; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 24.6%; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 1.1% per year; rating input score 100; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.6% per year; rating input score 100; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.4% per year; rating input score 100; 46th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 65.6% of revenue deployed · 74.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 15 of 15 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $168K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $55K · 16 people listed
  • Consistency: 27 of 28 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 41/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 43/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 15/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 38/100.
  • Review — Grant Readiness: SAM / OFAC restrictions: this organization returned a name match close enough to need a human check before a grant is released.