Field of Hope
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 273822296
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2020–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2015, Form 990-T 2023, Form 990-N 2011
- Location
- Johnston, IA, USA
- Phone
- 5152365316
- Rating
- 80
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- International Relief
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $349,351
- Expenses
- $358,602
- Assets
- $133,230
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
11 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- KYLE DOMNICK (PRESIDENT)
- CHRIS HAFNER (VICE PRESIDENT)
- OLIVIA MURPHY-SWEET (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- OLIVIA MURPHY-SWEET (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $86,000 total reported compensation
- CARRIE TRENKAMP (TREASURER): $6,000 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Field of hope's mission is to build resilience in livelihood, food, and nutritional security in resource-constrained communities through youth agricultural education, smallholder farmer advancement, and leadership development.
What it reported doing in 2025
Field of hope is a non-profit organization that is dedicated to empowering communities in uganda through sustainable agriculture, education, and economic development. The organization equips farmers in the northern region of uganda and teachers and youth throughout the country with practical agriculture training, resources, and mentorship. Field of hope's goal is to improve water and food security, create income, and build long-term self-sufficiency through locally led solutions.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 97% 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
STRONG - 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: 84
- Transparency & Controls: 77
- Accountability: 86
- Sustainability: 30
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 85%; rating input score 85
- Program expense ratio: 82.8%; rating input score 83
- Fundraising efficiency: $66.9 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
- Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
- Requires narrative reports: Fail
- Conducts field audits: Fail
- May suspend future funding: Fail
- Requires financial reports: Fail
- Conducts site visits: Fail
- Requires grant agreements: Fail
- May require repayment: Fail
- Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 81st 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: 6 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 67
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: Pass
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -2.6%; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.37; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 25.7%; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 10.3% per year; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 13.3% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 4.3% per year; rating input score 100; 41st percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 85% of revenue deployed · 82.8% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $297K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $86K · 11 people listed
- Consistency: 25 of 26 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
- Filing history: 5 filing years from 2020 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 2 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.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 7 of 8 not reported.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 9 not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 29/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 20/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 14/100.