Day Eagle Hope Project

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
833576145
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2023, Form 990-N 2019
Location
Harlem, MT, USA
Phone
4063991577
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Alliance/Advocacy Organizations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$688,113
Expenses
$416,021
Assets
$350,024
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • HILLARY HANDY (PRESIDENT)
  • TESCHA HAWLEY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • TESCHA HAWLEY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $41,520 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To improve the physical, mental and spiritual health of our communities by utilizing a holistic approach to healing which includes food sovereignty, mental health, cancer support and family resources.

What it reported doing in 2025

The day eagle hope project accomplished establishing a food pantry in the harlem public schools, developed additional resources and relationships with food sovereignty, administered the state of Montana lfpfa food grant to the entire service area supplying fresh, locally grown fruits and vegetables, provided resources to the community for cancer awareness, travel expenses and patient navigation to all cancer survivors and families. Continued to grow the organization with nomination of the top 10 cnn hero inductee, which lead to additional resources and recognition on a national level.dehp also added a peer support specialist, salaries for 2.5 staff and served approximately 720 individuals.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 68% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
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 a large share of total spending goes to programs. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 61
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 67
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 46%; rating input score 46
  • Program expense ratio: 76.1%; rating input score 76
  • Fundraising efficiency: $303.94 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings

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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • 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: 39.5%; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.84; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 10%; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 10.9% per year; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 27.6% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 26.9% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 46% of revenue deployed · 76.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 3 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $317K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $42K · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 26 of 26 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2020 to 2025
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 46/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 38/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 37/100.