Hope and a Future International

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
263700968
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2010–2015
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2015, Form 990-N 2008
Location
Fayetteville, AR, USA
Rating
87
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
International Relief

Reported finances

Revenue
$49,271
Expenses
$41,344
Assets
$8,024

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

People named in this filing

  • CINDY LOWMAN (CHAIR PERSON)
  • TONY HARRISON (CO-CHAIR PER)
  • SHERYL DAVIS (SECRETARY/TR)

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

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Hope and a future internatonal provides scholarshp funds by way of a child sponsorship program to the children of honduras. Because parts of honduras do not have a free public education system beyond the sixth grade, a child in honduras will be able to continue attending school with the help of contributions to hope and a future international. Hope and a future international plans to award scholarships for many students. This is only possible with the generosity of the donors from across the united states.

What it reported doing in 2015

Hope and a future international provides scholarship funds by way of a child sponsorship program to the children of honduras. The country of honduras does not provide free public education beyond the sixth grade. Through hope and a future the children of honduras will be able to continue attending school.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Revenue has declined or grown slowly and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 86
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Sustainability: 45
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 79.7%; rating input score 80
  • Program expense ratio: 94.9%; rating input score 95

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 16.1%; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.19; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 3.1% per year; rating input score 100; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -20.1% per year; rating input score 0; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -45.1% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 79.7% of revenue deployed · 94.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $39K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 6 of 6 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2010 to 2015
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 15/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 57/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.