Heart of Hope

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
992352336
IRS 990 coverage
2024–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Colorado Springs, CO, USA
Phone
7192004495
Rating
54
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Children's, Youth Services

Reported finances

Revenue
$42,869
Expenses
$37,841
Assets
$21,231
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • TASHA MATHEW (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • TASHA MATHEW (PRESIDENT)
  • DR PIERRE BRAGANZA (TREASURER)
  • SADE REUARIN (SECRETARY)

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

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

Overview

Mission

Charity Mission - To help children in need find shelter, education, nutrition, and support to build a brighter future. That is done through partnership with other charities that align with the mission till we are able to initiate our own programs. The corporation is organized exclusively for charitable purposes, including, for such purposes, the making of distributions to organizations that qualify as exempt organizations under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code or the corresponding section.

What it reported doing in 2025

Projects: 20821: lifeline 1,000 children in india 44786: empower girls and women in india 46436: food relief service 46485: after care support 47811: feed poor in goa 49950: education 1,000 slum children in goa 51614: house of hope homeless women 56861: protect women from trafficking in mumbai 57111: protect trafficked women in mumbai 61590: goa's underpriviledged women 63993: goa's slum girls schooling 64949: monsoon safety to slum dwellers 67308: rescue trafficked children in mumbai 68021: joy to goa's children in need

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 100% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

MIXED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 77
  • Transparency & Controls: 63
  • Accountability: 6
  • Sustainability: 50
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 83.4%; rating input score 83
  • Program expense ratio: 94.5%; rating input score 94
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 81.8%; rating input score 82; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 0 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Fail
    • 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: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: Limited
  • Governance controls: 1 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 14
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Fail
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 11.7%; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.56; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -41.2% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -34.3% per year; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 75.4% per year; rating input score 100; 98th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 83.4% of revenue deployed · 94.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 1 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 5 filed program accomplishments · $36K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 18 of 20 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes foreign activity
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2024 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 8 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 21/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Independent members within voting members did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 58/100.