Hands Together for Haitians Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
202512245
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
North Palm Beach, FL, USA
Phone
5616765822
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,489,475
Expenses
$1,491,288
Assets
$460,638
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • NANCY ANDERSON (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • LAVEAUX NARCISSE (VICE PRESIDE): $53,000 total reported compensation
  • ORESTAL MICHEL (DIRECTOR): $42,310 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

In palm beach county (Florida): hands together for haitians strives to assist the haitian immigrant population with the transition from living in their native country to living in the united states. This goal addresses a multitude of issues including education, health care, social, language and cultural barriers, access to social resources, counseling and guidance, and meeting daily needs such as food requirements. In haiti: hands together for haitians strives to build sustainable programs to support those who are suffering from a lack of adequate nutrition, health care, education, employment and social programs.

What it reported doing in 2025

Haiti education, agricultural projects, sponsorship & outreach: in haiti, 1) hands together for haitians supports 2 rural grade schools in haiti with teachers' salary support and food for the children, 2) hands together for haitians also works with farmers in 2 areas, providing them with seed, fertilizer, irrigation pipes and training and 3) hands together for haitians sponsors 13 families with 600-800 a year for food and basic needs.

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 85% of its reported program spending out as 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 expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 83
  • Transparency & Controls: 74
  • Accountability: 80
  • Sustainability: 34
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 93.6%; rating input score 94
  • Program expense ratio: 93.5%; rating input score 93
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 15th 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; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 75%; rating input score 75; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: -0.1%; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.31; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 6.4%; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 18.7% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 15.9% per year; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 15.5% per year; rating input score 100; 70th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 93.6% of revenue deployed · 93.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 12 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $1.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $53K · 12 people listed
  • Consistency: 19 of 20 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and grants
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 7 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 29/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 16/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 47/100.