The Hive Community Circle

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
470992295
IRS 990 coverage
2021–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2020, Form 990-N 2019
Location
Columbia, SC, USA
Phone
8038887725
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Centers to Support the Independence of Specific Populations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$838,617
Expenses
$1,016,359
Assets
$41,345
Liabilities
$83,350

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ASHLEY OLAYINKA (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • MICHAEL LEWIS (BOARD PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • ASHLEY OLAYINKA (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $100,742 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The hive community circle is a survivor-led, survivor-driven support organization helping women and girls in South Carolina overcome the trauma of sexual assault, intimate partner violance, and stalking.

What it reported doing in 2024

Survivor support: the hive invested $288,688 directly in survivors within South Carolina, providing comprehensive, survivor-centered services. Overall, 152 survivors were served through the hives peer support services. Survivor support included peer advocacy, safety planning, case management, and counseling, with 50 survivors receiving counseling services. The hive also fulfilled 177 emergency and economic relief services, addressing urgent survivor needs and promoting stability and healing. An additional $27,003 was invested in mental health services for survivors, reinforcing the hives commitment to long-term wellness and recovery.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 78% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 84% 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

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 48
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 9
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 55.2%; rating input score 55
  • Program expense ratio: 45.6%; rating input score 46
  • Fundraising efficiency: $4.82 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 17; 17th 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: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 76th 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; 63rd 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: -21.2%; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.04; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 2.02; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 9.9%; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 33.2% per year; rating input score 100; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 26.2% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -17.7% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 55.2% of revenue deployed · 45.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $463K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $101K · 12 people listed
  • Consistency: 28 of 28 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2021 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 55/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 46/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 17/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 9/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 2/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 2/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 37/100.