Bangladesh Christian School Sponsorship America Aka Bangla Hope

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
912094497
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Miltonfreewater, OR, USA
Phone
5095864259
Rating
68
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Fund Raising and/or Fund Distribution
Affiliation
Christianity

Reported finances

Revenue
$760,323
Expenses
$930,532
Assets
$420,315
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • KEN ROSE (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • ROBYN GRIFFIN (Executive Dir.): $69,685 total reported compensation
  • DEBORA AXFORD (Secretary): $51,881 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Benevolent, christian organization with the purpose of aid, relief, care, support and education of orphaned, neglected and impoverished children and youth in bangladesh.

What it reported doing in 2024

Provide for the emotional, physical, spiritual and educational needs of orphaned or abandoned children in Bangladesh. The children are raised in a setting that is safe, clean, bright and nurturing. Bangla Hope assumes responsibility for all of the childs needs, including durable medical equipment such as wheelchairs, orthodontia and even surgery for issues impacting health and quality of life. The children are provided enrichment activities such as music lessons and computer training. If the child has the desire and capacity to pursue a college, vocational or post-high school education, a sponsor(s) may be identified who may provide a portion of, or all, of the funds and resources to make that happen.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 86% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 94
  • Transparency & Controls: 46
  • Accountability: 64
  • Sustainability: 24
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 86.7%; rating input score 87
  • Fundraising efficiency: $83.41 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 12th 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: 0%; rating input score 0; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • 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: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -22.4%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.45; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 13.1%; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 2.1% per year; rating input score 100; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -1% per year; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 2.8% per year; rating input score 100; 29th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 86.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 13 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $807K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $70K · 13 people listed
  • Consistency: 25 of 27 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes foreign activity
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2016 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.

Key Signals

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

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 8/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 21/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 28/100.