Hammers for Hope

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
460948170
IRS 990 coverage
2017–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-N 2016
Location
Middletown, CA, USA
Phone
7072794297
Rating confidence
Limited
Sector
Home Improvement and Repairs
Affiliation
Christianity

Reported finances

Revenue
$0
Expenses
$2,667
Assets
$1,345,723
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MOKE SIMON (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • MOKE SIMON (PRESIDENT)
  • JOHN HESS (VICE PRESIDE)
  • MARK BORGHESANI (TREASURER)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

Hammers for Hope is a California nonprofit public benefit corporation established to provide charitable assistance to low and moderate-income households in Lake and Sonoma counties through a program of home repairs, home improvements, and weatherization.

Operating model

Revenue model
No positive adjusted resources. The filing reports no positive adjusted operating resources.
Distribution model
No current program activity. The filing reports no program spending for the current year.

The verdict

- The available evidence is not sufficient to produce an overall rating for this filing. This is not a warning sign.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 0
  • Sustainability: 44
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: Limited
  • 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: 0%; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 0 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Fail
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: Limited
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 504.58; rating input score 99; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -29.1% per year; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -35.3% per year; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7.5% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 4 board members independent · 0 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 12 of 12 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2017 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 58/100.