Project Have Hope Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 208871117
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2015–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2023
- Location
- Malden, MA, USA
- Phone
- 3392064626
- Rating
- 79
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- International Development
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $211,131
- Expenses
- $208,915
- Assets
- $42,859
- Liabilities
- $5,213
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
4 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- KAREN SPARACIO (PRESIDENT FOUNDING DIRECTOR)
- AGNES PORTLALEWSKA (VICE PRESIDENT)
Highest reported compensation
- KAREN SPARACIO (PRESIDENT FOUNDING DIRECTOR): $74,400 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Project Have Hope seeks to empower women in the Acholi Quarter of Uganda by providing education to both women and their children and assisting the women to establish business oportunities to promote economic stability and sustainability.
What it reported doing in 2025
SCHOOL FEES/ CHILD SPONSORSHIP: Project Have Hope currently sponsors over 100 children and teenagers ranging from age 5 to 21. Project Have Hope enrolls children in day schools and boarding schools in order to best suit the individual needs of children and their families. The two day schools, Good Daddy and Kireka Hill, are among the best performing schools in the country. The two boarding schools, St. Kizito and St. John Bosco, are high quality Catholic schools in the area. Project Have Hope has no religious affiliation nor does it promote particular religious beliefs; all of the schools we work with have been chosen for the quality of education they provide. All four schools encourage academic excellence and have a diverse student body.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 71% for direct work, and 29% for 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 fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 87
- Transparency & Controls: 77
- Accountability: 75
- Sustainability: 25
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
- Program expense ratio: 85%; rating input score 85
- Fundraising efficiency: $6.61 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 27; 27th 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: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
- Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
- 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: 75%; rating input score 75; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- 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: 1%; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.21; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.12; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 35.6%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 1.3% per year; rating input score 100; 34th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 2.4% per year; rating input score 100; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 5.1% per year; rating input score 100; 44th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 85% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 3 of 4 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $178K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $74K · 4 people listed
- Consistency: 23 of 23 current checks pass
- Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
- Filing history: 5 filing years from 2015 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
- 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: 7 of 8 not reported.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 27/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 38/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 12/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 8/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 20/100.