Hope for Tomorrow Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
510596442
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2012, Form 990-N 2011
Location
Derwood, MD, USA
Phone
3013790242
Rating
68
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Human Services N.E.C.

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$630,102
Expenses
$484,608
Assets
$1,083,131
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DUC T LE MD (PRESIDENT)
  • QUYEN DANG DDS (VICE PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • DUC T LE MD (PRESIDENT)
  • QUYEN DANG DDS (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • THANG DO (TRESURER)

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

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Mission nbsp; of nbsp; hope nbsp; for nbsp; tomorrow nbsp;(hope) nbsp; is nbsp; to nbsp; provide nbsp; healthcare nbsp; human nbsp; services nbsp; infrastructure nbsp; build nbsp; outs nbsp; and nbsp; educational nbsp; assistance nbsp; to nbsp; the nbsp; disadvantaged nbsp; communities nbsp; hope nbsp; organizes nbsp; and nbsp; runs nbsp; numerous nbsp; programs nbsp; to nbsp; serve nbsp; those nbsp; in nbsp; need

What it reported doing in 2024

Mai tam social enterprise (saigon vietnam) - supporting multiple charitable initiatives serving underprivileged communities

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 99% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.

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 the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 55
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 81
  • Sustainability: 77
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 54%; rating input score 54
  • Program expense ratio: 69.6%; rating input score 70
  • Fundraising efficiency: $4.38 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 0 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Fail
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Fail
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 99.1%; rating input score 99; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 87.5%; rating input score 88; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 71
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 23.1%; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.24; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 1.9% per year; rating input score 100; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8.5% per year; rating input score 100; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 9.9% per year; rating input score 100; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 54% of revenue deployed · 69.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 8 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $248K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 19 of 20 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and grants
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2016 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 6 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 6 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.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 54/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 8 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 15/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule G fundraiser detail did not reconcile in the filed values.