How Hughes Family Foundation Inc allocates its funds across programs, administration, and fundraising.
80%
Program Spending
Healthy — majority goes to mission
15%
Admin Costs
Reasonable — admin costs in check
5%
Fundraising
Within typical range
How to read this: Well-run charities typically spend 75% or more on programs, keep admin under 25%, and fundraising under 15%. A high program ratio means more of every dollar goes directly to the mission.
How to Interpret This Report
What Red Flags Mean
Red flags are potential warning signs identified by AI analysis of IRS 990 filings. They may indicate issues like declining revenue, high executive pay relative to program spending, lack of transparency, or governance concerns. A single red flag does not necessarily mean an organization is untrustworthy, but multiple flags warrant further investigation before donating.
What Mission Score Measures
The Mission Score (0-100) evaluates how effectively a nonprofit fulfills its stated purpose. It combines multiple factors: program spending efficiency (how much goes to programs vs. overhead), financial health and sustainability, governance quality, transparency in reporting, and consistency of operations over time. A score of 70+ indicates strong alignment with the organization’s mission.
Using This Data for Donation Decisions
Use this report as one input in your decision. Look at the overall Mission Score for a quick assessment, review red flags and strengths for specific concerns, check the spending breakdown to see where money goes, and compare executive compensation to the organization’s size. Consider viewing the full transparency report for deeper analysis, and always verify tax-exempt status with the IRS before making large donations.
Frequently Asked Questions about Hughes Family Foundation Inc
Is Hughes Family Foundation Inc a legitimate charity?
Based on AI analysis of IRS 990 filings, Hughes Family Foundation Inc (EIN: 202055555) appears trustworthy. Mission Score: 75/100. 2 red flags identified, 3 strengths noted.
Is Hughes Family Foundation Inc a good charity to donate to?
Hughes Family Foundation Inc has a Mission Score of 75/100. Revenue: $601K. Assets: $1.1M. Review the full transparency report for detailed spending breakdown and executive compensation analysis.
What is the EIN for Hughes Family Foundation Inc?
The Employer Identification Number (EIN) for Hughes Family Foundation Inc is 202055555. This is the unique tax ID assigned by the IRS.
What is a Mission Score?
The Mission Score is a 0-100 rating that measures how effectively a nonprofit fulfills its stated mission. It factors in program spending efficiency, financial transparency, governance practices, and outcome reporting. Scores above 70 indicate strong mission alignment, 40-69 suggest mixed performance, and below 40 signals potential concerns.
How does Hughes Family Foundation Inc spend its money?
Hughes Family Foundation Inc allocates 80% to programs, 15% to administration, and 5% to fundraising. Healthy nonprofits typically spend 75%+ on programs.
How can I verify Hughes Family Foundation Inc's tax-exempt status?
You can verify Hughes Family Foundation Inc's tax-exempt status using EIN 202055555 on the IRS Tax Exempt Organization Search (TEOS) at apps.irs.gov/app/eos. You can also request copies of their Form 990 directly from the organization, as they are required by law to provide them upon request.
AI Transparency Report
The Hughes Family Foundation Inc. exhibits fluctuating financial performance, with significant negative revenue reported in 2022 ($-56,832) and 2020 ($-36,479), contrasting sharply with a substantial positive revenue of $1,365,772 in 2019. Despite these revenue swings, the organization consistently maintains low liabilities, often reported as $1 or $0, indicating strong financial stability in terms of debt. The foundation's assets have generally grown over time, from $602,103 in 2011 to $1,124,471 currently, though there was a decrease from a peak of $1,558,221 in 2019 to $1,289,553 in 2022. The consistent reporting of 0% officer compensation across all available filings suggests a commitment to minimizing administrative overhead related to executive pay, which is a positive indicator of spending efficiency and transparency regarding leadership compensation.
However, the negative revenue figures in recent years warrant closer examination to understand their source and impact on long-term sustainability. While the organization's liabilities are minimal, the inconsistent revenue streams could pose challenges for consistent program delivery if not managed effectively. The lack of detailed expense breakdowns in the provided data makes a precise assessment of program spending versus administrative and fundraising costs difficult. Nevertheless, the absence of officer compensation is a strong point for efficiency and transparency in that specific area.