Hope For San Diego
Legal name: North Coast Christian Ministries Inc DBA Hope for San Diego
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 770605178
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2012–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2009
- Location
- San Diego, CA, USA
- Phone
- (760) 230-3035
- Rating
- 80
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Emergency Assistance
- Affiliation
- Christianity
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $1,064,959
- Expenses
- $1,009,658
- Assets
- $247,650
- Liabilities
- $1,318
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
10 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Amanda Boerneke (President)
Highest reported compensation
- Susie Fikse (Executive Dir.): $93,616 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
In light of Christ’s love, Hope for San Diego engages our community to care for and invest in our under-served neighbors. Can you imagine a city where all people thrive? A city where everyone sleeps in a warm bed at night? A city where all children are safely nurtured in healthy families? A city where neighbors welcome strangers with open arms? That’s the vision of Hope for San Diego—a renewed city where even the most vulnerable thrive. Working toward that vision means Hope for San Diego walks into the shadows of our city to be the hands and feet of hope to those who need it most. Our Mission.
What it reported doing in 2024
Hope for San Diego raises awareness, engages volunteers and provides funding to support and strengthen organizations serving poor or marginalized populations throughout the city. By connecting volunteers and financial resources with effective and trustworthy organizations, we can effect positive and sustainable change for the most vulnerable residents of San Diego.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 99% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 41% for direct work, and 59% 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. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 77
- Transparency & Controls: 86
- Accountability: 82
- Sustainability: 40
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 78.4%; rating input score 78
- Program expense ratio: 82.4%; rating input score 82
- Fundraising efficiency: $18.3 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 86.7%; rating input score 87; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 97.2%; rating input score 97; 45th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 90%; rating input score 90; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 5 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 71
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
- 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: 5.2%; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.25; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 9.3%; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 15% per year; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 12.6% per year; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 12.5% per year; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: Mission, programs, and operating context captured from the official website.
- Where the money goes: 78.4% of revenue deployed · 82.4% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 9 of 10 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $832K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $94K · 10 people listed
- Consistency: 24 of 26 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
- Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
- Filing history: 12 filing years from 2012 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 24 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 11 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.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 56/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 11/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 50/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 39/100.