Hands United Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
471252930
IRS 990 coverage
2018–2019
Forms available
Form 990 2019, Form 990-N 2018
Location
Fayetteville, GA, USA
Phone
6786976474
Rating
48
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Federated Giving Programs

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$268,036
Expenses
$101,991
Assets
$170,762
Liabilities
$31,800

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2019. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

2 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ROMAN RUSEV (FOUNDER/CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • TATYANA FERGUSON (EXECUTIVE DI): $44,415 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2019. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The mission of hands united, inc. Is to serve under-aged boys and girls who are survivors of human trafficking. We do so by providing a restorative housing program (at separate locations) and giving them access to tailored restorative care and services for a minimum of two years. We strive to bridge the gap on the availability of restoration for minors. Our goal is to provide a continuum of care that takes the victim from survivor to over-comer, while forging a lifelong continued alliance. The gravity of the trauma that victims experience too often drives them back to servitude or the commercial sex industry. We believe the best way to disrupt this cycle is to uphold the values of empathy, unifying stewardship, and sustainability.

What it reported doing in 2019

The second exempt purpose accomplishment of hands united, inc. Is intervention services. The organization expanded its cyber-training program to include parents and volunteers. We hosted 4 community events to continue to raise awareness of the existence of human trafficking in our communities and surrounding areas. The average turnout per event was 100+ attendees. The objective is to partner with parents to present a non-threatening, responsible cyber-presence option for the teenagers. Our partnership with the safe place program has also expanded our ability to identify and assist victims of human trafficking. The organization assisted 22 survivors and their families through the cyber-training program.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
No current program activity. The filing reports no program spending for the current year.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 3
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 65
  • Sustainability: 65
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Fundraising efficiency: $6.4 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 28; 28th 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: 80%; rating input score 80; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 43
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Limited
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 61.9%; rating input score 96; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.67; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.19; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 43.5%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -200% per year; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 173.8% per year; rating input score 100; 100th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 198.8% per year; rating input score 100; 100th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 5 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments
  • Leadership: top reported pay $44K · 2 people listed
  • Consistency: 21 of 21 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2018 to 2019
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 28/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 55/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 5/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 26/100.