House of Hope of Madison County Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
351667946
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Anderson, IN, USA
Phone
7656447086
Rating
67
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$443,395
Expenses
$448,265
Assets
$308,642
Liabilities
$47,453

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • TIM LANANE (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • DANIEL TRAVIS ISAACS (EXECUTIVE DI): $51,178 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The organization provides transitional aid to individuals who have participated in substance abuse and seek a chemical free lifestyle. House of hope of madison county inc provides transitional residential services (half-way house) for men in recovery from substance abuse. A structured program is provided to assist them in establishing a foundation in recovery, learning self-responsibility, and relapse prevention. Clients have an individualized treatment plan including group therapy and one-on- one counseling. A three-quarter house program is available for clients who successfully complete the half-way house, but are not ready for independence.

What it reported doing in 2024

Comprehensive residential: provide residential transitional and secondary shelter along with professional counseling to male persons recovering from substance abuse while continuing to inform the community about the agency along with the dangers of substance abuse.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 82% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 48
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 69
  • Sustainability: 32
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 54.3%; rating input score 54
  • Program expense ratio: 53.7%; rating input score 54
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -1.1%; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.69; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.15; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 11.4%; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 1.1% per year; rating input score 100; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.9% per year; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 54.3% of revenue deployed · 53.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $241K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $51K · 12 people listed
  • Consistency: 25 of 25 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2015 to 2024
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 54/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 54/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 36/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 31/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 22/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 28/100.