Halstons Hope Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
842896806
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2022–2025
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2025
Location
Golden, CO, USA
Rating
68
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Mental Health Disorders

Reported finances

Revenue
$5,130
Expenses
$37,312
Assets
$4,844

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

People named in this filing

  • Kimberly Smith-Adams (Founder)
  • Chuck Adams (Treasurer)
  • Cheryl Powell (Operations Event Planning Therapy)

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

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

Overview

Mission

OUR MISSION: Saving lives through the healing touch of animals PURPOSE: We exist to help reduce youth suicides VISION: A world without youth suicide To inspire strength in young adults HHF works with school-based counselors and therapists to provide animal-assisted therapy. HHF has partnered with therapists who use animals in their therapy model throughout the Denver metro area. Based on a referral from a school counselor or therapist HHF pays for therapy sessions.? HHF also offers scholarship assistance for those who seek to be in the animal assisted industry. Working with accredited educational institutions students can apply for academic scholarships for use in an academic degree-granting program in a trade school community college university or an online degree program.

What it reported doing in 2025

Animal assisted therapy sessions

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of total spending goes to programs and some filed totals do not add up.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 69
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 12
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 17.2%; rating input score 17

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -627.3%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.13; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -32.2% per year; rating input score 0; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -47.7% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -41.9% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 17.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 2 filed program accomplishments · $6K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 6 of 7 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2022 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 — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 17/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part III transfer expenses within program total did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 2/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 15/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.