HOPE Community Services
Legal name: Hope Community Services Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 731098634
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2011–2023
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2023
- Location
- Oklahoma City, OK, US
- Phone
- 405-634-4400
- Rating
- 75
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Community Mental Health Center
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $24,890,864
- Expenses
- $26,046,818
- Assets
- $25,311,864
- Liabilities
- $6,751,708
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
17 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Jeanette Moore (Former Chief Executive Officer)
- Heather Helberg (Chief Executive Officer)
- Steve Rice (Board Member Vice President)
Highest reported compensation
- Patrick Horn (Medical Director): $395,324 total reported compensation
- Jeanette Moore (Former Chief Executive Officer): $193,653 total reported compensation
- Heather Helberg (Chief Executive Officer): $178,765 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To increase access to compassionate care and cultivate healing.
What it reported doing in 2023
Hope is a major provider of federal housing assistance in Oklahoma County offering seven programs funded by the Department of Housing and Urban Development and one by the Department of Veterans Affairs. These programs aim to house homeless chronically homeless or at-risk individuals families and veterans. In the fiscal year 2024 Hope assisted about 227 participants exceeding the minimum participant capacity due to effective fund management.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Other-operating. 66% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
- Distribution model
- Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.
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 expenses are high relative to revenue.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 71
- Transparency & Controls: 67
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 31
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 80.9%; rating input score 81
- Program expense ratio: 77.3%; rating input score 77
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 14th 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: 92.4%; rating input score 92; 22nd 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; 66th 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: -4.6%; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.97; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.27; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 5.4%; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 10% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 10% per year; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 10.1% per year; rating input score 100; 65th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 2 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
- Where the money goes: 80.9% of revenue deployed · 77.3% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $20.1M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $395K · 17 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 43 of 46 current checks pass · 3 findings to review
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 13 filing years from 2011 to 2023
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 8 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 19/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 36/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 45/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Insurance column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 52/100.
- High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.