Hope Enterprise Corporation
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 640851798
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2011–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Jackson, MS, USA
- Phone
- 601-944-1100
- Rating
- 76
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Standard
- Sector
- Community, Neighborhood Development
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $46,032,084
- Expenses
- $27,445,916
- Assets
- $165,547,721
- Liabilities
- $101,902,954
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
30 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- WILLIAM BYNUM (PRESIDENT/CEO)
Highest reported compensation
- WILLIAM BYNUM (PRESIDENT/CEO): $449,306 total reported compensation
- ALAN BRANSON (EVP/CFO/TREASURER/ASST SECRETARY): $129,988 total reported compensation
- CHLOE DOTSON (EVP/CHIEF PROGRAM & STRATEGY OFFICER): $127,874 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To reduce energy costs and energy burdens for households, grow local solar businesses and create jobs, boost energy independence and community resiliency, and eliminate dangerous air pollution in low-income and disadvantaged communities in Arkansas and Mississippi.
What it reported doing in 2024
Community development financial institution specializing in community infrastructure lending to education and health care facilities, healthy food access providers, affordable housing, and lending to small and medium sized businesses.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 78% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 96% 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
SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and liabilities are high compared with assets.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 56
- Transparency & Controls: 82
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 78
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 42%; rating input score 42
- Program expense ratio: 70.5%; rating input score 70
- Fundraising efficiency: $67.17 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 86.7%; rating input score 87; 1st percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Pass
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Pass
- Board or committee approval: Missing
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 99.2%; rating input score 99; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: Pass
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 40.4%; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 6.03; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.62; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 3.9%; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 7.8% per year; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 10.9% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 12% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 2 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 2 operating locations identified
- Where the money goes: 42% of revenue deployed · 70.5% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 21 of 21 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $19.3M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $449K · 30 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $2M reported
- Consistency: 35 of 37 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
- Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, executive pay, and related organizations
- Filing history: 13 filing years from 2011 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 23 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 40 filed related-organization links
- 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.
- Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.
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.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 42/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 21/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.