Hope Exchange

Legal name: Cleveland Hope Exchange Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
834314074
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2020
Official website data refreshed
Jun 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2020, Form 990-N 2019
Location
Fairview Park, OH, USA
Phone
440-201-9744
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support
Affiliation
Religious (unspecified)

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$836,437
Expenses
$822,658
Assets
$36,677
Liabilities
$3,738

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MEGAN KLINT (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • MEGAN KLINT (Executive Director): $65,000 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Cleveland has the second highest poverty rate among big cities in America at 35%, rising from previous years. While some parts of the city are thriving, like the booming restaurant industry and the growing entrepreneur base, the reality is that many are trapped in poverty & cycles of hunger, homelessness, human trafficking, and addiction, leaving individuals and families left with little hope. SIGN UP TO VOLUNTEER NEIGHBORHOOD. I am a community activist, problem solver & wild believer that great change is possible. With both domestic and international experience in grassroots movements and nonprofits, I have seen the cycle of despair in many forms of humanitarian issues. I desire true transformation in our community, even in the darkest corners and deepest rooted issues.I believe in waking up with the idea that something wonderful is about to happen, and if your passions collide with...

What it reported doing in 2020

The organization distributed over 300,000lbs of fresh and dry foods, and essential consumer goods, and hygiene products to the local community based solely on items donated from other organizations, businesses, and individuals. The organization worked in partnership with churches and local religious organizations to distribute these items freely to those in need and impoverished in the community. Please see Schedule I for a lengthy breakdown of all the donated food and consumer goods distributed to the community as part of the Organization's program services.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as 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 the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 85
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 69
  • Sustainability: 27
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 89.4%; rating input score 89
  • Program expense ratio: 90.9%; rating input score 91
  • Fundraising efficiency: $14.43 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 74th 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • 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: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 1.6%; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.04; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.1; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 7.9%; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

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

Details

  • What they do: 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 89.4% of revenue deployed · 90.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 4 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $748K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $65K · 5 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 21 of 21 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • 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.

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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 45/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 31/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 2/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 48/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 49/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.