Red Oak Hope

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
822014196
IRS 990 coverage
2017–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Austin, TX, USA
Phone
5126567642
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
International Relief

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$975,365
Expenses
$930,838
Assets
$292,716
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • HALEY PATTERSON (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • HALEY PATTERSON (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $87,510 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Red oak hopes vision is for survivors of sexual exploitation to experience freedom, hope, and restoration. Our mission is to stop cycles of exploitation by providing holistic healing to survivors and collaborating with the community.

What it reported doing in 2025

Us domestic: our program in austin, tx exists to provide a holistic response to the needs of sexually exploited and trafficked individuals through (1) supportive housing services where we provide safe, free housing for 18-24 months, comprehensive case management, supportive services, skills development, social support, disability support, and aftercare to support self-sufficiency; (2) community-based services that focus on community crisis response and short-term stabilization with the primary goals of improvements in clients overall safety, well-being, self-sufficiency, and social connectedness so that they can begin or continue to heal from their trauma, obtain economic security, and remain free from re-exploitation or victimization; and (3) through partnership and movement building we work with community stakeholders in collaboratives and coalitions to address the complex issues of human trafficking in our community. See schedule o for 2025 accomplishments.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 64% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 51% for direct work, and 49% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - 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 fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 70
  • Transparency & Controls: 78
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 40
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 73.9%; rating input score 74
  • Program expense ratio: 77.5%; rating input score 77
  • Fundraising efficiency: $8.13 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 85.7%; rating input score 86; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Fail
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Pass
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 4.6%; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.31; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 9.4%; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 15.9% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 15.2% per year; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.9% per year; rating input score 100; 39th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 73.9% of revenue deployed · 77.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $721K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $88K · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 34 of 36 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and grants
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2017 to 2025
  • 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 6 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 28/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 44/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 16/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule G fundraiser detail did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 39/100.