Project Home Trust

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
814107218
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2018
Forms available
Form 990 2018
Location
Goose Creek, SC, USA
Phone
8433438425
Rating
79
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Homeless Shelters

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,681
Expenses
$322,496
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2018. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • KATHLEEN LOVE (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • KIM WILSON (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • KATHLEEN LOVE (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • BETSY WILSON (SECRETARY/TREASURER)
  • KIM WILSON (PRESIDENT)

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 2018. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Project h.o.m.e. Is an initiative to provide a safe, caring, and supportive environment for homeless or displaced teenage boys in the north charleston, sc area. We will do this by providing a home and establishing a family environment which will include house parents, food, clothing, and structured living. The home will house up to 4 students at any given time. Research shows a large drop-out rate among homeless students and project h.o.m.e. Aspires to provide them with much needed assistance to see these young men through high school graduation, and potentially break the cycle of homelessness in their lives.

What it reported doing in 2018

Our expected outcomes are to see a decrease in drop-out rates for male students that are displaced and participate in the program; an increase in academic grades, including gpa for participating students; an increase in participant's school attendance; and a higher percentage of students that participate in the program pursuing higher education.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 88% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 89
  • Transparency & Controls: 87
  • Accountability: 76
  • Sustainability: 9
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 43
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -8,661.1%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 120.9% per year; rating input score 100; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -130.5% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -75.6% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $322K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 7 people listed
  • Consistency: 14 of 15 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2016 to 2018
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 2/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 2/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D land buildings reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.