Project Hope Ministries

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
814334694
IRS 990 coverage
2017–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Battle Creek, MI, USA
Phone
2692742008
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
International Relief

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$106,422
Expenses
$104,547
Assets
$65,442
Liabilities
$1,054

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Sara Cleland (Co-Executive Director)
  • Jason Cleland (Co-Executive Director)
  • Caleb Wygant (President)
  • Timothy Stob (Vice-President/Secretary)

Highest reported compensation

  • Sara Cleland (Co-Executive Director): $12,000 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Our mission is to provide support and resources to children of poverty living in Bogota, Colombia. This includes in-country support for adoptive families, mini-grants for post adoption support, and programs that provide educational and nutritional support to children living in poverty. Project Hope conducts annual mission trips to provide awareness and services.

What it reported doing in 2025

Project Hope was able to provide support to American families who are adopting children from Bogota, Colombia. We provided low-cost housing assistance, in-country assistance, and adoptive support for families. In addition, we provided services to local adoption agencies both domestic and in-country to assist in the placement of children ready for adoption. We worked with a number of orphanages in Colombia to provide services such as Bible programs and help with repairs and improvements of facilities. Project Hope also provides in-country housing for missionaries and mission teams who are serving the community.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 62% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 90% 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: 68
  • Transparency & Controls: 75
  • Accountability: 79
  • Sustainability: 35
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 77%; rating input score 77
  • Program expense ratio: 77.3%; rating input score 77
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

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: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: 1.8%; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.63; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 11.5%; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 3.4% per year; rating input score 100; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5% per year; rating input score 100; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7.5% per year; rating input score 100; 54th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 77% of revenue deployed · 77.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $81K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $12K · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 45 of 45 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2017 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 40/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 29/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 26/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 36/100.