Helping Oppressed People Everywhere

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
832549019
IRS 990 coverage
2022–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2023
Location
Kingwood, TX, USA
Rating
58
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
International Relief

Reported finances

Revenue
$384,077
Expenses
$442,733
Assets
$281,450
Liabilities
$10,271

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

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • Meredith Rincon (Director): $71,590 total reported compensation
  • Dr Dearing Garner (Chairman): $39,442 total reported compensation
  • Jenny Burris (Employee): $4,250 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The purpose of Helping Oppressed People Everywhere HOPE is to reach out to disadvantaged children and families wherever they are and show genuine love and care by providing essential needs and sustainable interventions. Currently our focus is South Africa, Romania, and Virginia.

What it reported doing in 2025

In partnership with Duduza Care Centre, this project supports over 150 students in the rural township of Matiwane, KwaZulu-Natal. HOPE funds four essential initiatives that help children thrive: after school care, childhood nutrition, intervention services, and sustainable gardening. Reaching across the KwaZulu-Natal region, this project provides direct aid to 600 students in need: HOPE DUDUZA GRANT PROJECT: 600 Vulnerable Children: 300 HIV positive students receive psychosocial support, 200 students receive daily meals from local soup kitchens, and 100 students receive monthly food parcels. Originally funded by USAID, this program lost its support in 2025. HOPE is actively seeking new donors and partners to continue this life-saving work.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 41% for direct work, and 59% for grants.

The verdict

MIXED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and program spending has grown recently. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 85
  • Transparency & Controls: 57
  • Accountability: 6
  • Sustainability: 20
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 88.7%; rating input score 89
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Pass
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Pass
    • Requires financial reports: Pass
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 0%; rating input score 0; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 14
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Limited
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -15.3%; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.64; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.04; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 26%; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 21.6% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 24.5% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 21.6% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 88.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 4 board members independent · 1 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $393K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $72K · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 23 of 24 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes foreign activity
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2022 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 6 not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 4 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 14/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 30/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 13/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 30/100.