The Road Home Dane County Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
311618925
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Madison, WI, USA
Phone
6082947998
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Homeless Centers

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,042,618
Expenses
$3,447,003
Assets
$8,844,229
Liabilities
$1,160,903

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

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MICHAEL ETHERIDGE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • KRISTIN RUCINSKI (INTERIM EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • KRISTIN RUCINSKI (INTERIM EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $185,344 total reported compensation
  • MICHAEL ETHERIDGE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $47,315 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 road home dane county provides opportunities for homeless children and their families to achieve self-determined goals and affordable, stable housing.

What it reported doing in 2024

Mvp - the mainstream voucher program is administered by the city of madison community development authority and dane county housing authority. The road home partners with both agencies to provide support services for over 50 families with section 8 mainstream vouchers, allowing them to pay 30% of their income for rent. Each housing authority has different eligibility criteria but in both partnerships, the household needs to include a head of household between 18-61 years old with a disability.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 71% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 78% for direct work, and 22% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 66
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 36
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 74.6%; rating input score 75
  • Program expense ratio: 61.9%; rating input score 62
  • Fundraising efficiency: $8.26 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd 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: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -13.3%; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.57; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.13; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 6.7%; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 8% per year; rating input score 100; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6% per year; rating input score 100; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4.1% per year; rating input score 100; 30th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 74.6% of revenue deployed · 61.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $2.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $185K · 13 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 36 of 36 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 31/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 10/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 43/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 53/100.