The Phoenix House Sexual Assault & Domestic Violence Resource Center

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
832004769
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2019
Location
Hobbs, NM, USA
Phone
5754413566
Rating
59
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Protection Against Abuse

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$567,796
Expenses
$529,452
Assets
$543,396
Liabilities
$336

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • GRETCHEN KOETHER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • BECKY COUSINS (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • GRETCHEN KOETHER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $55,915 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To provide education, awareness and prevention information throughout the communities of Lea County and services such as forensic exams and advocacy, for victims/survivors of sexual assault, domestic violence, strangulation, child injury, and human trafficking, free of charge.

What it reported doing in 2024

The Phoenix House was established in 2018 by 2 sexual assault nurse examiners who had previously worked for a similar agency that covered 7 counties in the State of New Mexico. The data from that organization determined a significant number of sexual assault cases, adult and child, were occurring in Lea County. The 2 nurses decided there was enough demand in Lea County to support its own sexual assault unit. Hence, The Phoenix House Sexual Assault & Domestic Violence Resource Center was established. Located in Hobbs, New Mexico, The Phoenix House provides free and confidential advocacy services to survivors of domestic and sexual violence. Services include sex assault exams, domestic violence exams, strangulation exams and general advocacy.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 72% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 79% for direct work, and 21% for grants.

The verdict

MIXED - 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: 22
  • Transparency & Controls: 94
  • Accountability: 74
  • Sustainability: 52
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 24.2%; rating input score 24
  • Program expense ratio: 25.9%; rating input score 26
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

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: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 6.8%; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.03; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 10.6%; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 15.7% per year; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 18.3% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 23.6% per year; rating input score 100; 86th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 24.2% of revenue deployed · 25.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 4 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $137K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $56K · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 29 of 29 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2020 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 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: Mission deployment rate scored 24/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 26/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 54/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 43/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 35/100.