One Hope
Legal name: One Hope Network
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 205994687
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2014–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2009
- Location
- Eugene, OR, USA
- Phone
- 541-968-1132
- Rating
- 83
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Christianity
- Affiliation
- Christianity
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $467,674
- Expenses
- $483,704
- Assets
- $201,984
- Liabilities
- $91,101
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
5 people listed
Highest reported compensation
- STEVE BUSS (Executive Dir.): $87,147 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Pursuing the Peace & Transformation of the Greater Eugene & Springfield Community. > “We consider it a privilege to be part of the called out ones that are building God’s kingdom here in Eugene & Springfield. We participate with and financially support the work of One Hope because it is helping us BE the church... Together.” — Pastor Van Clements, Willamette Christian Center > “One Hope has been incredibly effective in not only bringing pastors and ministry leaders together to pray; but has also been a catalyst to see churches and ministries work together to impact our cities in profound ways we cannot do alone. I want to recommend One Hope as a valuable and integral ministry for bringing leaders together in our community to fulfill the great commission of Jesus Christ.”.
What it reported doing in 2024
Cottages of Hope is a collaborative initiative to address Lane Countys housing crisis. We are partnering with Every One Village to develop a reproducible model to sponsor and/or build a 16x8 cottage for people transitioning out of homelessness. Under the direction of skilled contractors, simple plans have been developed and a process put in place to multiply the number of transitional homes in Lane County for people experiencing homelessness. This empowers caring community groups with a tangible method to make an impact in Lane Countys housing shortage.________________________________________
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 88% 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
STRONG - 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 expenses are high relative to revenue.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 89
- Transparency & Controls: 85
- Accountability: 79
- Sustainability: 25
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 90.8%; rating input score 91
- Program expense ratio: 87.8%; rating input score 88
- Fundraising efficiency: $102.97 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 13th 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Other executive compensation review process: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -3.4%; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.42; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.45; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 18%; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 8.2% per year; rating input score 100; 65th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 6.2% per year; rating input score 100; 59th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 4.7% per year; rating input score 100; 46th 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: 90.8% of revenue deployed · 87.8% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $425K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $87K · 5 people listed
- Consistency: 23 of 24 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
- Filing history: 10 filing years from 2014 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
- 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 32/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 21/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 12/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 21/100.