Mary House Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
521253494
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
2026350534
Rating
71
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$918,223
Expenses
$712,481
Assets
$5,398,137
Liabilities
$198,369

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JAY HENDERSON (PRESIDENT)
  • SHARON MURPHY (VICE PRESIDENT ED OF PROGRAMS)
  • WILLIAM MURPHY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • SHARON MURPHY (VICE PRESIDENT ED OF PROGRAMS): $89,873 total reported compensation
  • WILLIAM MURPHY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $5,872 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To empower vulnerable families and build customized programs for their independence and self-sufficiency by providing transitional housing programs in addition to food clothing and other basic foundational services.

What it reported doing in 2024

At the heart of Mary Houses mission is the Transitional Housing Program empowering low-income immigrant and refugee families. Mary Houses focus goes beyond the conventional definition of "family," welcoming diversity including intergenerational families single parents two-parent households and pregnant women. All individuals are embraced with inclusivity finding a supportive community at Mary House united by the shared goal of providing a secure and supportive environment for all residents. THE MARY HOUSE AFTER SCHOOL PROGRAM HAS BEEN A CORNERSTONE OF MARY HOUSES COMMITMENT TO CHILDRENS EDUCATION SINCE 1997. THE AFTER SCHOOL PROGRAM SERVES 10-20 KIDS FROM PRE-K THROUGH 5TH GRADE; AND OPERATES IN CLOSE PARTNERSHIP WITH LOCAL SCHOOL JURISDICTIONS. THROUGH THIS COLLABORATION MEMBERS OF MARY HOUSE PICK CHILDREN UP FROM SCHOOL AND WALK THEM TO ONE OF MARY HOUSES CENTERS; ENSURING A SEAMLESS TRANSITION FROM THEIR ACADEMIC DAY TO THE ENRICHING AFTER-SCHOOL ACTIVITIES PROVIDED BY MARY HOUSE.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 68% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of total spending goes to programs and the filed numbers largely add up. 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: 65
  • Transparency & Controls: 86
  • Accountability: 64
  • Sustainability: 73
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 54.7%; rating input score 55
  • Program expense ratio: 70.5%; rating input score 71
  • Fundraising efficiency: $250.15 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 16th 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: 81.8%; rating input score 82; 18th 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: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 22.4%; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 7.58; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.04; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 13.4%; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -1.3% per year; rating input score 0; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.2% per year; rating input score 100; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 2.7% per year; rating input score 100; 28th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 54.7% of revenue deployed · 70.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 11 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $502K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $90K · 12 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $867K reported
  • Consistency: 41 of 44 current checks pass · 3 findings to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 55/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX FeesForServicesManagement column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 27/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 56/100.