Samaritan House

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
237416272
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
San Mateo, CA, US
Phone
(650) 347-3648
Rating
84
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$35,619,250
Expenses
$35,763,099
Assets
$38,088,675
Liabilities
$2,894,550

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

Leadership & pay

29 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MICHAEL JACKSON (PRESIDENT)
  • JOHN LAKE (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • LAURA BENT (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER)
  • JESSICA HARDERS (VICE PRESIDENT OF ADVANCEMENT)
  • CONNIE GERSHANECK (VICE PRESIDENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES)

Highest reported compensation

  • LAURA BENT (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER): $295,215 total reported compensation
  • JOLIE BOU (CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER): $235,901 total reported compensation
  • ALEC RAFFIN (CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER): $212,357 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 are working to keep everyone in our community fed, clothed, healthy, and housed.

What it reported doing in 2024

Coordinated entry system: since 2017, samaritan house has been under contract with san mateo county human services agency (hsa) center on homelessness as the operator of the county's coordinated entry system (ces), closely partnering with numerous government agencies, core service agencies, homeless outreach providers, domestic violence providers, correctional facilities, medical facilities, and other identified providers to deliver services. The ces referral network now includes an impressive 18 agencies. In fy25, ces served 3,451 individuals countywide.ces aims for functional zero homelessness integrating a coordinated framework centered on housing crisis resolution, including preventing homelessness through diversion, as well as a standardized process for accessing homeless services for individuals and households experiencing homelessness. The program leverages unhoused clients' resources and resiliency to secure housing arrangements with a shelter placement as the last resort. This strategy prevents homelessness for people seeking shelter by helping them identify immediate alternate housing arrangements and, if necessary, connect them with services and financial assistance to help them return to permanent housing. Samaritan house (1) oversees initial screening of unsheltered households, (2) provides shelter diversion to those currently unhoused or at imminent risk of homelessness, (3) conducts standardized assessments, and (4) facilitates interim housing placements. Collaborating closely with hsa, we manage matching and referrals for housing interventions, striving to improve the lives of san mateo county's working poor and their families by addressing systemic inequities, alleviating poverty, and creating socio-economic benefits.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 99% 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.
  • 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 expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 83
  • Transparency & Controls: 79
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 41
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 87.7%; rating input score 88
  • Program expense ratio: 85.8%; rating input score 86
  • Fundraising efficiency: $15.13 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd 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; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 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: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -0.4%; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.07; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.08; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.4%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 14.5% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 12.1% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 10% per year; rating input score 100; 65th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 13 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 87.7% of revenue deployed · 85.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 21 of 21 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 6 filed program accomplishments · $30.7M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $295K · 29 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $1.9M reported
  • Consistency: 37 of 37 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 8 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 50/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 29/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 38/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.