Martin House of Hope Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
364912306
IRS 990 coverage
2019–2021
Forms available
Form 990 2021
Location
Rancho Cucamonga, CA, USA
Rating
53
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Temporary Housing

Reported finances

Revenue
$164,404
Expenses
$20,080
Assets
$144,340
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2021. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SHARON MARTIN (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • SHARON MARTIN (PRESIDENT)
  • DAVID MARTIN (TREASURER)
  • DEJANAY SALTER (SECRETARY)

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 2021. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To provide room and board for mental, non-mental patients, and disabled veterans with issues and in need of help.

What it reported doing in 2021

Supplies for youth

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 97% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
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

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and revenue comfortably covers expenses. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of voting board members are independent.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 32
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Accountability: 12
  • Sustainability: 88
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 9.8%; rating input score 10
  • Program expense ratio: 80%; rating input score 80
  • 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; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Fail
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 87.8%; rating input score 98; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 7.19; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -40.6% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 28% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 149% per year; rating input score 100; 100th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 9.8% of revenue deployed · 80% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 3 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $3K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 15 of 15 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2019 to 2021
  • 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.

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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 10/100.
  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.