Serve Hope International

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
830707250
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Dallas, TX, USA
Phone
8178452880
Rating
63
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
International Relief

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,761,803
Expenses
$1,311,985
Assets
$2,741,715
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MATTHEW MCMAHAN (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • MATTHEW MCMAHAN (PRESIDENT): $95,000 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 mobilize national volunteers around the world to help provide for the needs of clean water, sustainable housing, and educational advancement. Each of our initiatives are platforms for giving dignity to each person served, walking alongside them and crossing the finish line with them as they achieve success.

What it reported doing in 2025

Agua pura: a clean water distribution program focused on vulnerable families in central america that have no access to clean water. In partnership with the bucket ministry, serve hope staff, and volunteers lead in the distribution of sawyer water filters to families in need, providing clean drinking water. This program is carried out in conjunction with local churches and missions as part of community outreach. Funding for these project come from donations to the serve hope international.

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 59% for direct work, and 41% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

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: 56
  • Transparency & Controls: 66
  • Accountability: 60
  • Sustainability: 72
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 46.8%; rating input score 47
  • Program expense ratio: 62.2%; rating input score 62
  • Fundraising efficiency: $95.16 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 18th 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: 74%; rating input score 74; 37th 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; 19th 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: Fail
    • 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: 25.5%; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.09; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 7.2%; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 14.7% per year; rating input score 100; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 10.4% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 20.9% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 46.8% of revenue deployed · 62.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 4 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $816K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $95K · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 30 of 31 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and grants
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2020 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 2 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 47/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 8 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 45/100.