Our House Grief Support Center

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
330529915
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Los Angeles, CA, USA
Phone
3104731511
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Mental Health, Crisis Intervention N.E.C.

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$4,520,352
Expenses
$3,933,928
Assets
$5,571,450
Liabilities
$3,298,927

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

29 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JULIA MIELE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • ELSA STEFANIAN (CLIN. DIRECTOR OF ADULT PROGRAM): $204,666 total reported compensation
  • JULIA MIELE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $181,853 total reported compensation
  • DANIELLE KOWALCZYK (DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT - NYC): $141,397 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 the community with grief support services, education and resources.

What it reported doing in 2025

Our house grief support center provides the los angeles community with grief support services, education, resources, and hope. For over 30 years, our house has helped thousands of grieving children, teens, and adults as they embark upon their journeys to hope and healing after the death of someone close. Grief support services are led by highly trained volunteers who are supervised by our house clinical staff. Groups are age and relationship specific. The organization also offers grief support groups in local schools helping grieving children in low-income, underserved areas of la county; hosts two summer grief camps annually for children, teens, and their parents/guardians; provides short-term onsite grief response to businesses and schools who have experienced the death of a community (continued on schedule o) member; and facilitates grief education presentations for the community.in 2025, our house served thousands of grieving children, teens, adults, caregivers, and professionals across los angeles county. The school program supported 700 bereaved students through 50 groups at 43 schools, while the family support program served 135 youth and 90 caregivers. Camp erin la provided grief support to 111 children and teens and 93 caregivers, and 891 adults participated in grief support groups in person and virtually. Through its spanish community program, our house reached more than 6,200 spanish-speaking individuals through support groups, quilting workshops, and outreach efforts. Together, these programs enabled our house to serve, reach, and educate more than 10,000 people in 2025. Program outcomes demonstrate the effectiveness of the our house model: 94% of program participants reported an increased ability to express thoughts and feelings about their loss, 94% improved their use of healthy coping strategies, 92% found comfort in connecting with peers who had also experienced a death, and 98% said they would recommend the program to others.building on the success of its los angeles programs, our house expanded its reach in 2025 with the launch of our house New York city, a program of our house los angeles. Newly serving 30 grievers during the year, oh nyc is the first replication of the organization's grief support model outside of California - oh nyc bringing our house's proven peer support approach for grieving children, teens, adults, and families to a new city, extending our mission and impact while remaining grounded in the clinical expertise and program philosophy developed over more than three decades in los angeles.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 92% 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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 64
  • Transparency & Controls: 74
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 46
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 66%; rating input score 66
  • Program expense ratio: 75.1%; rating input score 75
  • Fundraising efficiency: $6.74 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • 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: 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: 13%; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.42; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.59; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 23.1%; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 6.1% per year; rating input score 100; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5.6% per year; rating input score 100; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.6% per year; rating input score 100; 36th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 66% of revenue deployed · 75.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 19 of 19 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $205K · 29 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 35 of 35 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2014 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 6 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 22/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 46/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 12/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 13/100.