Hope Africa Collective Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
264147492
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2011
Location
Winter Garden, FL, USA
Phone
5302620780
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Protestant
Affiliation
Christianity

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$315,812
Expenses
$278,524
Assets
$328,986
Liabilities
$2,248

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

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Terry Hilliard (President)
  • Jeremy Hilliard (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Terry Hilliard (President): $27,600 total reported compensation
  • Jeremy Hilliard (Vice President): $10,945 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Hope Africa Collective is an Organization Incorporated in the State of Montana. The Corporation is organized for the purpose of ministering to the communities of africa with the gospel of Jesus Christ through preaching and teaching. The organization will be engaged in the following activities: Working with local men and women of the christian faith to establish churces. Plans are to open a bibel open to christian men and women to train them in the scriptures and biblicial principles. Helping local men and women launch their own businesses by teaching them a trade. No loans or money will be provided, simply the knowledge to perform a trade. There is no charge for this activity.

What it reported doing in 2025

Throughout the year we had the privilege of working with pastors and leaders throughout south africa to establish & Equip healthy churches. We provided pastors and church members with biblical training and leadership training modules to further equip them in their roles. Throughout these african nations we scouted out locations for future ministry and established new relationships with pastors and community leaders. In this process we also performed a needs analysis study to determine best possible approachg to bringing community transformation.During our ministry we engaged in training local leaders in the above listed african nations in life skills training and providing basic health care to villages. Additionally we spent time with these people in helping them learn job skills in the area of carpentry that could be used for them to make furniture to provide a source of income to their families.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 99% 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

SUPPORTED - 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 fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 70
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 69
  • Sustainability: 49
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 70.5%; rating input score 71
  • Program expense ratio: 80%; rating input score 80
  • Fundraising efficiency: $9.55 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: 11.8%; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.18; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 13.8%; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 0% per year; rating input score 100; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.4% per year; rating input score 100; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 10.7% per year; rating input score 100; 65th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 70.5% of revenue deployed · 80% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 3 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $138K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $28K · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 23 of 25 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2013 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 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: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 36/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 45/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 24/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 42/100.