The Hand That Gives Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
812012446
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2016
Forms available
Form 990 2016
Location
Memphis, TN, USA
Phone
9015085006
Rating
48
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Arthritis

Reported finances

Revenue
$467,160
Expenses
$338,641
Assets
$128,519
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

2 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • QUNITON WHITE (DIRECTOR): $7,200 total reported compensation
  • MENTHA WHITE (ADMINISTRATOR): $6,000 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Our organization is committed to providing community service that gives availability and aid to off-track youths and homeless and disabled indiviuals.

What it reported doing in 2016

Our organization is committed to providing community service that gives availability and aid to off-track youths and homeless and disabled indiviuals. We were able to service 13 summer camp programs.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
No current program activity. The filing reports no program spending for the current year.

The verdict

MIXED - 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 a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Accountability: 76
  • Sustainability: 61
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 66.7%; rating input score 67; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 27.5%; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.38; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 3.9%; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 2 of 3 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $339K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $7K · 2 people listed
  • Consistency: 21 of 21 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 21/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Conflict-of-interest policy not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 40/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.