Hnds & Ft
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 332967124
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2025–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025
- Location
- Erwin, TN, USA
- Phone
- 8287727431
- Rating
- 56
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Disaster Preparedness and Relief Services
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $587,863
- Expenses
- $530,298
- Assets
- $57,565
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
2 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Kenneth Perciful (CEO)
Highest reported compensation
- Kenneth Perciful (CEO): $33,000 total reported compensation
- Sharee Perciful (Secretary): $21,692 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 mission is rooted in the call to be the hands and feet of Christ. We serve others with love compassion and purpose focusing on those in urgent need.
What it reported doing in 2025
HNDS & FT provided disaster relief and recovery assistance to families affected by Hurricane Helene and other hardships throughout East Tennessee and surrounding communities. Services included debris removal home repairs rebuilding efforts accessibility improvements demolition and volunteer coordination. During the year the organization completed 97 projects utilizing more than 30,000 volunteer hours and over 1,000 volunteers. These efforts enabled families to return to safe and stable housing while reducing the financial burdens carried by natural disaster and other crises.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.
The verdict
MIXED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 67
- Transparency & Controls: 80
- Accountability: 14
- Sustainability: 43
- Growth: NotEnoughData
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 71.8%; rating input score 72
- Program expense ratio: 79.6%; rating input score 80
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 88.9%; rating input score 89; 4th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: Limited
- Major donor itemization: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 3 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 33
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: Pass
- Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 9.8%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.11; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 10.3%; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: Limited
- Asset growth: Limited
Details
- Where the money goes: 71.8% of revenue deployed · 79.6% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 0 of 3 board members independent · 3 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $422K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $33K · 2 people listed
- Consistency: 30 of 41 current checks pass · 11 findings to review
- Schedules: 2 filed schedules
- 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 — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 8 not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 6/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 56/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Advertising column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX CompCurrentOfficersDirectors column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX ConferencesMeetings column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX FeesForServicesLegal column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Insurance column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Occupancy column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX OfficeExpenses column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX OtherSalariesAndWages column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX PayrollTaxes column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Travel column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 36/100.