Into the Wild
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 861899760
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2025–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025, Form 990-N 2025
- Location
- King, NC, USA
- Phone
- 3363140051
- Rating
- 68
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Alcohol, Drug and Substance Abuse, Dependency Prevention and Treatment
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $15,909
- Expenses
- $39,503
- Assets
- $10,844
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
9 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Sonia Hensel (Executive Director)
Highest reported compensation
- Sonia Hensel (Executive Director): $16,692 total reported compensation
- Krista Gunnell (Peer Support Specialist): $1,725 total reported compensation
- Nicatie Lockhart (Peer Support Specialist): $1,710 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 holistic recovery services to women experiencing the effects of Substance Use Disorder in therapeutic outdoor environments.
What it reported doing in 2025
Conducted two full 6 week sessions that included individual and group counseling, trauma informed care, art therapy, gentle yoga sessions , healthy food choice discussions, and challenging outdoor experiences (kayaking, swimming, hiking, and campfire therapy). All experiential activities were conducted in a combination of open-air and natural outdoor settings to address the physical, psychological, and social dimensions of addiction recovery. During the tax year, the organization served twenty-four women and each six-week session consisted of two days per week. The curriculum for each session contained identical wilderness programming, delivered by licensed clinical staff, certified peer support specialists, case managers, and aftercare planning coordinators all focused on sustained recovery. All clients completed intake questionnaires that examined their opinions regarding initial rehabilitation, next stage recovery, probability of substance use, and other factors that impact their ability to return to being productive members of our community and to regain their sense of self.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Grant-funded. 61% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
- Distribution model
- Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and expenses are high relative to revenue.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 87
- Transparency & Controls: 80
- Accountability: 43
- Sustainability: 19
- Growth: NotEnoughData
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
- Program expense ratio: 74.1%; rating input score 74
- Fundraising efficiency: $12.45 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 80%; rating input score 80; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: Limited
- Major donor itemization: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 20%; rating input score 20; 21st percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 6 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 75
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: Limited
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -148.3%; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.27; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 62.7%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: Limited
- Asset growth: Limited
Details
- Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 74.1% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 1 of 5 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $37K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $17K · 9 people listed
- Consistency: 32 of 40 current checks pass · 8 findings to review
- Schedules: 2 filed schedules
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 7 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
- Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
Key Signals
Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.
- High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 20/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 14/100.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 57/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 15/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Advertising column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX InformationTechnology column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Insurance column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX OfficeExpenses column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX PayrollTaxes column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Series expense component sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 2/100.