New Hope for Immigrants
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 862141302
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2025–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2025, Form 990-N 2024
- Location
- East Grand Forks, MN, USA
- Rating
- 68
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Human Service Organizations
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $83,124
- Expenses
- $79,624
- Assets
- $1,445
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
4 people listed
People named in this filing
- ILHAAM HASSAN (EXECUTIVE DI)
- NOURA AHMED (DIRECTOR)
- MOHAMED ISMAIL (DIRECTOR)
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 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To promote the social well-being of immigrant families by providing self- sufficiency through employment, education, culture
What it reported doing in 2025
Refugee employment & career supports (eshara program) through the eshara employment & career supports program, the organization helped immigrant and refugee participants navigate employment pathways and workforce integration. Services included: "employment guidance "career coaching "workforce navigation support this program contributes to economic stability and long-term success for immigrant families. ________________________________________ community impact through these programs, new hope for immigrants works to: "improve employment opportunities for immigrant communities "provide youth educational support "promote cultural understanding and community engagement "support social and economic integration of immigrant families
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
SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filed totals do not add up and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 67
- Transparency & Controls: 82
- Sustainability: 33
- Growth: NotEnoughData
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 65.6%; rating input score 66
- Program expense ratio: 68.5%; rating input score 68
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 4.2%; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.02; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: Limited
- Asset growth: Limited
Details
- Where the money goes: 65.6% of revenue deployed · 68.5% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 4 filed program accomplishments · $55K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
- Consistency: 5 of 6 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 2 filed schedules
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
- Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
- 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.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part I part ii net assets crosscheck did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 8/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 52/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.