A Ray of Hope

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
816089463
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2011
Location
Kalispell, MT, USA
Phone
4062613984
Rating
85
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Food Banks, Pantries

Reported finances

Revenue
$413,022
Expenses
$350,922
Assets
$1,007,756
Liabilities
$685

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DAVID MCLEAN (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • RACHELLE HERNANDEZ (SECRETARY): $40,567 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

A ray of hope shall provide a safe harbor for those in the community with nowhere else to turn. It will provide those who seek help not only with food, clothing and shelter; but with knowledge and an avenue to develop competency in meeting lifes financial, emotional, family legal and rehabilitation challenges. A ray of hope will offer a "hand up," rather than a "hand out" in order to build self-respect and dignity.

What it reported doing in 2025

A ray of hope received many requests for assistance in 2025 from needy individuals and families. There were 525 requests for a hand up - 372 requests for housing, 54 were for those with children and 25 children stayed. There were also 454 requests for benevolence and other support including clothing and showers. Sadly, 194 were denied assistance due to lack of funding or space or other. The organization is looking for land in the county areas to build a family shelter complex. Aroh provides a shelter for the homeless and a place for people to rehabilitate from drug and alcohol use. The organization also provides funds to families with children for utilities, rent, and other items in order for them to maintain a safe home. The organization provides counseling and referral services to aid people to gain self sufficiency.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 69% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 67% for direct work, and 33% for grants.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and reported officer compensation is a large share of total spending, which may reflect staffing concentration.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 81
  • Transparency & Controls: 94
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 60
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 74.2%; rating input score 74
  • Program expense ratio: 87.1%; rating input score 87
  • Fundraising efficiency: $667.71 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 96; 96th 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: Limited
  • 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: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 15%; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.87; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 11.6%; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 9.9% per year; rating input score 100; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6.5% per year; rating input score 100; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8.9% per year; rating input score 100; 59th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 74.2% of revenue deployed · 87.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $306K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $41K · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 29 of 29 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 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.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 26/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 51/100.