One Hen Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
264434478
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2015
Forms available
Form 990 2015
Location
Nashville, TN, USA
Phone
6153513102
Rating
84
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
International Relief

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$390,159
Expenses
$414,517
Assets
$44,984
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Helen Rosendfeld (Executive Director (part year))
  • Matt Schatzle (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Helen Rosendfeld (Executive Director (part year)): $50,089 total reported compensation
  • Matt Schatzle (Executive Director): $35,217 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

One Hen empowers youth to become social entrepreneurs by equipping educators with resources to inspire youth to four behaviors: financial responsibility, personal initiative, global awareness, and giving back.

What it reported doing in 2015

In 2015, One Hen, Inc. reached hundreds of students across the country with its experiential, social entrepreneurship programming. This was accomplished via partnerships with Citizens Schools, America SCORES Boston, and a variety of other school and community based organizations. Additionally, in 2015, One Hen continued to engage hundreds of students in Ethiopia for a pilot test of a Self Help Group Application. The students formed savings groups, learned about financial literacy, increased their knowledge of business development and started small businesses. The program was successful and is being replicated in other areas of Ethiopia and Tanzania.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 87% 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

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 87
  • Transparency & Controls: 83
  • Accountability: 93
  • Sustainability: 27
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 91%; rating input score 91
  • Program expense ratio: 83.3%; rating input score 83
  • Fundraising efficiency: $39.12 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 76; 76th 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: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Pass
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Fail
    • Conducts site visits: Pass
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 87.5%; rating input score 88; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -6.2%; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.11; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 20.6%; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 30.4% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 10% per year; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -1.5% per year; rating input score 0; 33rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 91% of revenue deployed · 83.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 8 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $345K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $50K · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 31 of 31 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2011 to 2015
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 5 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 27/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 7/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 20/100.