The Orphanetwork

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
541983817
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Virginia Beach, VA, USA
Phone
7573337200
Rating
63
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Human Services N.E.C.
Affiliation
Christianity

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,744,175
Expenses
$3,736,757
Assets
$1,829,550
Liabilities
$70,128

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

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Brian Franz (Vice President)
  • Robert Cleary (Chief Executive Officer)

Highest reported compensation

  • Robert Cleary (Chief Executive Officer): $211,199 total reported compensation
  • Margaret Carter (Chief Financial Officer): $107,033 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The mission of ORPHANetwork is to partner with the the local church to break cycles of poverty amongst highly vulnerable children.

What it reported doing in 2025

Health and Feeding includes the Life Saving, Life Transforming, and Health & Nutrition programs. The Life Saving Program (LSP) provides basic needs for survival in the form of soy-fortified rice and the development of local leaders. The Life Transforming Program (LTP) provides beyond basic needs to eliminate malnutrition and establish a platform of health in the community that will ultimately break cycles of poverty. ORPHANetworks Health and Nutrition program has aligned goals and actions to six global goals that the World Health Organization has defined as priorities (stunting, anemia, low birth weight, childhood overweight, breastfeeding, and wasting). Our partners are developed through quarterly leadership development trainings so they can execute the holistic programs that are designed to break cycles of poverty while empowering them to share Jesus Christ. This program also includes leadership development initiatives.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 99% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 53% for direct work, and 47% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 63
  • Transparency & Controls: 48
  • Accountability: 93
  • Sustainability: 29
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 67.5%; rating input score 67
  • Program expense ratio: 67.4%; rating input score 67
  • Fundraising efficiency: $8.34 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Pass
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Pass
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 0%; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 87.5%; rating input score 88; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • 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: 0.2%; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.49; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.04; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 8.5%; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -0.9% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 0.6% per year; rating input score 100; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 2.7% per year; rating input score 100; 21st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 67.5% of revenue deployed · 67.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 8 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $2.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $211K · 9 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 32 of 33 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2012 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: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 29/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 5 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 27/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 16/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 38/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.