Amare Caring Hands Foundation Inc Fka Kyani Caring Hands Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
810829674
IRS 990 coverage
2017–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-N 2016
Location
Lehi, UT, USA
Rating
68
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Fund Raising and Fund Distribution

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$51,950
Expenses
$40,164
Assets
$42,298
Liabilities
$374,555

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

People named in this filing

  • GRACE BECKER (DIRECTOR)
  • DAVID C CHUNG (DIRECTOR)
  • JOAN MALLOY (DIRECTOR)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

At amare, our mission is to lead a global movement that empowers people to live positive, productive, and purposeful lives. Amares core values are love, integrity, innovation, service, and humility. We are honored to further this mission through the amare caring hands foundation. Thanks to your generous donations in 2024, amare caring hands is expanding its impactbringing hope, education, and essential resources to even more communities in need. Through a new partnership with the koltael foundation, founded by caring hands alumnus andrew mangeris, were building high schools, supporting online university centers and providing critical services like free healthcare for indigenous families. Together, were creating brighter futures and opening doors of opportunity for students and their communities in some of the worlds most underserved regions.

What it reported doing in 2025

Donations are used to bring hope to children in need by improving access to nutrition, sanitation, and education. With the help of caring hands donations, amare builds and improves schools, provides sanitation training, supplies, and facilities for entire communities, and delivers life sustaining nutrition to areas throughout the world that are struggling with poverty or natural disasters.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% 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.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 75
  • Transparency & Controls: 72
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 49
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 75.8%; rating input score 76
  • Program expense ratio: 98.1%; rating input score 98
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 0 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Limited
    • Requires narrative reports: Limited
    • Conducts field audits: Limited
    • May suspend future funding: Limited
    • Requires financial reports: Limited
    • Conducts site visits: Limited
    • Requires grant agreements: Limited
    • May require repayment: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 22.7%; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.05; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 8.86; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -8.6% per year; rating input score 0; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -15.5% per year; rating input score 0; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -29% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 75.8% of revenue deployed · 98.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 3 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $39K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 21 of 21 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes foreign activity
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2017 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 28/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 1/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 58/100.