Valley Hope

Legal name: Valley Hope Association

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
480728186
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
Location
Norton, KS, US
Phone
(888) 255-1967
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Alcohol, Drug Abuse, Treatment Only

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$89,397,250
Expenses
$77,742,873
Assets
$94,372,137
Liabilities
$22,356,103

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

Leadership & pay

25 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Steven Knuth (Officer-Chief Executive)

Highest reported compensation

  • Jon Siebert (Officer-Chief Medical): $486,617 total reported compensation
  • Steven Knuth (Officer-Chief Executive): $385,089 total reported compensation
  • Patrick Hall (SrVP-Operations): $369,109 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Valley Hope helps people struggling with addiction reclaim their lives.

What it reported doing in 2024

The valley hope association (vha) is a nationally recognized, nonprofit organization dedicated to providing quality alcohol and drug addiction treatment services at an affordable price. Vha operates nine residential facilities and nine outpatient offices in seven states - az, co, ks, mo, ne, ok, and tx. Since opening its doors in 1967, vha has touched the lives of more than 318,000 individuals and family members. Services vha provides includes medically monitored detoxification, residential treatment, partial (day) treatment, intensive outpatient, relapse prevention and continuing care. Our mission is to provide a quality continuum of comprehensive treatment and related services.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 91% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 95% 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 total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 55
  • Transparency & Controls: 89
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 60
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 59.3%; rating input score 59
  • Program expense ratio: 67.8%; rating input score 68
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 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: Pass
    • 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%; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.21; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.24; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5%; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 1.7% per year; rating input score 100; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.1% per year; rating input score 100; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 3% per year; rating input score 100; 20th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 9 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 10 operating locations identified
  • Where the money goes: 59.3% of revenue deployed · 67.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $52.7M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $487K · 25 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $997K reported
  • Consistency: 36 of 37 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 10 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, executive pay, and related organizations
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 17 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 3 filed related-organization links
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 59/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 46/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 17/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.