House of Hope

Legal name: House of Hope of Alachua County Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
593336745
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2025
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2015, Form 990-T 2025
Location
Gainesville, FL, USA
Phone
(352) 642-4061
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Religion Related N.E.C.
Affiliation
Religious (unspecified)

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$167,395
Expenses
$161,676
Assets
$411,605
Liabilities
$109,900

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

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ROBERT VALDEZ (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • GREG HALE (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • ROBERT VALDEZ (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $75,000 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 House of Hope is dedicated to providing comprehensive support to individuals both within the correctional system and those reintegrating into society. Their mission focuses on successful reintegration through a holistic, multifaceted approach—including in-prison discipleship training and a transitional discipleship program—paired with essential services (food, shelter, clothes, spiritual development, employment opportunities, and life skills training), personal accountability, and connections to mentors and support networks.

What it reported doing in 2025

Through the house of hope inside program, a total of 33 incarcerated individuals successfully completed our in-facility discipleship curriculum. Concurrently, the house of hope outside initiative served 9 participants, 3 of whom fulfilled all requirements of our traditional discipleship program, making a significant milestone in their journey toward reintegration and spiritual renewal.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 89% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - 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 program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 82
  • Transparency & Controls: 85
  • Accountability: 74
  • Sustainability: 42
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 90.6%; rating input score 91
  • Program expense ratio: 93.5%; rating input score 94
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • 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: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • 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: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 3.4%; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.55; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.27; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 46.4%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -11% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 0.3% per year; rating input score 100; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4.1% per year; rating input score 100; 40th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 1 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 90.6% of revenue deployed · 93.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $151K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $75K · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 23 of 24 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2016 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.

  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 44/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 4/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 14/100.