Peace and Hope International

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
470917776
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Durham, NC, USA
Phone
8455588028
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
International Human Rights

Reported finances

Revenue
$415,412
Expenses
$458,021
Assets
$202,560
Liabilities
$4,880

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • VILMA BALMACEDA (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • ROBERTO CHIA (COO): $28,000 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To cultivate peace and provide relief to the poor distressed and underprivileged by defending fundamental human rights and ensuring access to justice working alongside a network of independent partner organizations across Latin America that share our name and commitment to advancing holistic restoration and delivering humanitarian aid.

What it reported doing in 2025

Peace and Hope International cultivates peace and provides relief to the poor distressed and underprivileged by defending fundamental human rights and ensuring access to justice. Working alongside a network of independent partner organizations-including Paz y Esperanza Peace and Hope affiliates in Bolivia Ecuador Peru Colombia Chile Brazil Argentina and El Salvador-the organization is committed to advancing holistic restoration and delivering vital humanitarian aid. We serve marginalized populations who lack access to justice by providing both direct programmatic work and partner support which includes legal representation and advocacy psychological social and economic rehabilitation as well as education training and emergency relief.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 96% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 95% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 80
  • Transparency & Controls: 75
  • Accountability: 69
  • Sustainability: 23
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 89.1%; rating input score 89
  • Program expense ratio: 80.8%; rating input score 81
  • Fundraising efficiency: $7.89 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 31; 31st 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: 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -10.3%; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.44; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 6.1%; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -1.9% per year; rating input score 0; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -1.6% per year; rating input score 0; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 3% per year; rating input score 100; 35th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 89.1% of revenue deployed · 80.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 11 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $370K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $28K · 12 people listed
  • Consistency: 45 of 45 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 8 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 31/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 19/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 22/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 30/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 33/100.