Isabella County Restoration House

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
264064779
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2015, Form 990-N 2013
Location
Mt Pleasant, MI, USA
Phone
9898540183
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Homeless Shelters
Affiliation
Christianity

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,180,451
Expenses
$656,569
Assets
$2,075,606
Liabilities
$6,970

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

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ANGELINA MANEY (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • AARON DESENTZ (PAST PRESIDE)
  • KIM VOISIN (BOARDMEMBER)
  • NORMA BAILEY (BOARDMEMBER)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

The organization's mission is to provide immediate, temporary housing to homeless individuals of all social and cultrual identities in isabella county and to advocate for access to services needed by patrons to address their individual needs. As a seasonal, temporary overnight shelter that operates during the coldest months, the organization works to provide guests with: documentation of homlessness, community program referrals, hot meals, advocacy, and community integration opportunities for both individuals and families in need. The organization operates through a rotating model by partnering with local churches, businesses, organizations, and other groups to meet the mission.

What it reported doing in 2024

Rotating shelter open october - april, day shelter open year round. The shelter had 24 churches host our guests at night, and has transitioned to providing a day shelter opening in the afternoon. We hosted 100 adults and 38 children and 13 families. Approximately 1,500 volunteers and over 15 local businesses gave their time this shelter season to make sure operations ran effectively and efficiently. The shelter successfully transitioned dozens of people into self- sufficient, safe and healthy living situations, linking numerous people to pertinent community-based services such as mental health, substance abuse, and protective services. The shelter also facilititatd opportunities for guests to obtain employment and education that allowed them to alleviate the barriers that led to their respective cycles of homelessness.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 91% 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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of total spending goes to programs. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 67
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 64
  • Sustainability: 84
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 50.8%; rating input score 51
  • Program expense ratio: 90.5%; rating input score 91
  • Fundraising efficiency: $51.73 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: 1 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 14
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 44.4%; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.16; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 26.6% per year; rating input score 100; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 29.9% per year; rating input score 100; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 34.2% per year; rating input score 100; 93rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 50.8% of revenue deployed · 90.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 14 of 14 board members independent · 1 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $594K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 13 people listed
  • Consistency: 25 of 25 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2016 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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 51/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 6 not reported.