Bridge of Hope Africa Ministries

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
474410021
IRS 990 coverage
2018–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2017, Form 990-N 2015
Location
Portland, OR, USA
Phone
5039565997
Rating
81
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
International Development
Affiliation
Christianity

Reported finances

Revenue
$503,262
Expenses
$538,862
Assets
$41,309
Liabilities
$276

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

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • Kathryn Walter (Executive Dir.): $89,585 total reported compensation
  • Amy Waddington (Director): $33,876 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Provide Ugandan children in desperate need with access to education, health care, and Christian discipleship to develop their unique potential of becoming future change agents for their society.

What it reported doing in 2025

Child gifts provided by US-based donors are wired directly to the office in Uganda. These child gift donations allow staff to purchase food and critical supplies for sponsored children and for the families of sponsored children. Many families lack the basic, everyday necessities to allow them to fully function and to be lifted out of poverty. Providing such basics as a mattress, a food package, a hygiene kit, or solar panel is a tangible and substantial way to help families in need. A vast majority of families in BOHAMs program lack proper bedding and most sponsored children go without food during school breaks. Thankfully, child gifts are one way that sponsors and ministry partners can give above and beyond to sponsored children within the program. In 2025, over 150 children were impacted by child gifts. A total of 1,433 gifts were provided from donors, totaling $97,785 in donations.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 99% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 79% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 87
  • Transparency & Controls: 79
  • Accountability: 82
  • Sustainability: 18
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 90.6%; rating input score 91
  • Program expense ratio: 84.7%; rating input score 85
  • Fundraising efficiency: $38.24 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Limited
    • Conducts field audits: Pass
    • May suspend future funding: Limited
    • Requires financial reports: Pass
    • Conducts site visits: Limited
    • Requires grant agreements: Limited
    • May require repayment: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 56
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • 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: -7.1%; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.08; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 22.9%; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 4.8% per year; rating input score 100; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 10.2% per year; rating input score 100; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6.3% per year; rating input score 100; 41st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 90.6% of revenue deployed · 84.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 5 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $456K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $90K · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 24 of 25 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2018 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 16/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 5/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 13/100.