Hands of Hope Adoption & Orphan Care Ministry Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
300616938
IRS 990 coverage
2017–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-N 2010
Location
Noblesville, IN, USA
Phone
8554644673
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Single Organization Support

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$939,347
Expenses
$1,098,573
Assets
$609,745
Liabilities
$28,330

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SUZETTE ROTH (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • SUZETTE ROTH (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $94,729 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 uniquely and deeply love orphans at home and around the world. We do this by offering child sponsorships and sending teams to our partner Childrens Homes around the world and supporting families who are adopting and caring for children in the foster care system.

What it reported doing in 2025

Events and support for foster children and parents. Over 440 children in foster care received support through Care Communities, 1,700 children were served through CarePortal and more than 447 supply bags were provided to the Department of Child Services. In total more than 4,900 foster children were served in Indiana in 2025.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 98% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 77% for direct work, and 23% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - 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: 76
  • Transparency & Controls: 67
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 22
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 87.4%; rating input score 87
  • Program expense ratio: 74.5%; rating input score 74
  • Fundraising efficiency: $8.96 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 83.3%; rating input score 83; 1st 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: 81.7%; rating input score 82; 39th 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 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -17%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.56; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.05; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 8.6%; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 7.4% per year; rating input score 100; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.8% per year; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 18.1% per year; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 87.4% of revenue deployed · 74.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 6 filed program accomplishments · $818K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $95K · 12 people listed
  • Consistency: 26 of 29 current checks pass · 3 findings to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and grants
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2017 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 4 filed related-organization links
  • 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

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

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 31/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 8/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 27/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 41/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 44/100.