Springtime of Hope

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
010572325
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2024
Location
Akron, OH, USA
Phone
3302940056
Rating
83
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Roman Catholic
Affiliation
Christianity

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$86,527
Expenses
$74,360
Assets
$170,589
Liabilities
$1,145

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JOSEPH J MONTANA II (PRESIDENT/CE)

People named in this filing

  • JOSEPH J MONTANA II (PRESIDENT/CE)
  • HELEN MONTANA (DIRECTOR)
  • CHRISTINA M WISE (DIRECTOR)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

Ministering to the fundamentals relating to the physical, emotional and spiritual needs of the less fortunate to prepare them for a better quality of life.

What it reported doing in 2024

Springtime of hope owns five homes that provide transitional supportive housing for men and one home that provides transitional supportive housing for women. Support is provided to men and women that have completed and graduated from a social service rehabilitation program and allows them to begin to rebuild their lives with family, friends and to reconnect with society.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% 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.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Revenue has declined or grown slowly and liabilities are high compared with assets.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 89
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 62
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 84.1%; rating input score 84
  • Program expense ratio: 97.9%; rating input score 98

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 14.1%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.29; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 2.2% per year; rating input score 100; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -1.4% per year; rating input score 0; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 2.5% per year; rating input score 100; 48th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 84.1% of revenue deployed · 97.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $73K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 7 of 7 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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 — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 30/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.