House of Hope Martin County

Legal name: Jesus House of Hope Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
592422998
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Stuart, FL, United States
Phone
(772) 286-4673
Rating
84
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Emergency Assistance
Affiliation
Christianity

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$8,535,131
Expenses
$8,816,434
Assets
$6,659,673
Liabilities
$752,202

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ROBERT RANIERI (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • ROBERT RANIERI (CEO): $178,978 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

We value the time, talents and contributions of our co-workers, our volunteers and our supporters. We support innovation and continuous improvement. [](. Our mission is to empower Martin County residents to overcome hunger and hardship. Vision: Our vision is to become the leader in transforming lives by providing basic needs and life skills to those in need. Vision:.

What it reported doing in 2024

Life skills training is provided by house of hope case workers and program services assistants through a variety of methods, which include: assisting clients with creating a plan to establish greater stability in their lives; identifying strategies to access trade-related training and scholastic opportunities; referrals to other support services in the community; and educating client in areas such as household and personal budgeting. A multitude of health related and other educational opportunities are also available through three enrichment centers. Throughout house of hope, clients are encouraged and empowered to advance towards self-sufficiency and breaking the cycle of poverty.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 91% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 45% for direct work, and 55% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

STRONG - 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 fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 91
  • Transparency & Controls: 69
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 35
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 90.2%; rating input score 90
  • Fundraising efficiency: $13.01 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.4%; rating input score 94; 24th 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: 99%; rating input score 99; 37th 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: 8 of 8 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: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -3.3%; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.76; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.11; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 2%; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 9.7% per year; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 9.2% per year; rating input score 100; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 14.4% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd 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: 100% of revenue deployed · 90.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $8M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $179K · 11 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 34 of 35 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2013 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 24 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 23 filed related-organization links
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 46/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 23/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 28/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 56/100.