Villa Hope

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
630967737
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2014
Forms available
Form 990 2014
Location
Birmingham, AL, USA
Phone
2058707359
Rating
62
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Adoption

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$161,809
Expenses
$192,159
Assets
$140,249
Liabilities
$157,076

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MARY ELIZABETH ANTHONY (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • ANNE BALDWIN (EXECUTIVE D): $43,450 total reported compensation
  • PAT BALDWIN (DIRECTOR INT): $15,465 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Adoption related services

What it reported doing in 2014

Adoption related services: home studies - 24 adoption placements - 6 adoption postplacemnt studies - 42

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 85% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
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

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: 47
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 74
  • Sustainability: 19
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 55.8%; rating input score 56
  • Program expense ratio: 46.9%; rating input score 47
  • 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: Limited
  • 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: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -18.8%; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.73; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 1.12; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 30.7%; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -21.1% per year; rating input score 0; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -12.3% per year; rating input score 0; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -5.7% per year; rating input score 0; 19th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 55.8% of revenue deployed · 46.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 3 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $90K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $43K · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 24 of 24 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2010 to 2014
  • 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.

Key Signals

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

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 56/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 47/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 13/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 36/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 6/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 10/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.