Stronghold Ministry

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
261656081
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Dallas, TX, USA
Phone
2142217007
Rating
79
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Christianity
Affiliation
Christianity

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$366,324
Expenses
$387,279
Assets
$217,399
Liabilities
$717

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Joe Fornear (Executive Director)
  • Diane Neal (President)
  • Jessica Stroud (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Joe Fornear (Executive Director): $89,157 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The ministrys mission is to reach cancer patients, their networks, others in life crisis with love, comfort, the good news of Jesus Christ. It will provide spiritual support comfort to cancer patients, caretakers others in a major life crisis. Outreach is through the internet, books, support groups, training seminars, retreats workshops.

What it reported doing in 2025

Email and Facebook correspondence - Our Executive Director Joe Fornear spent an average of 3 to 4 hours per day responding to email and Facebook correspondence from a pool of approximately 35,000 cancer patients we have connected with over 17 years. Phone calls - We averaged 5-10 calls per week from cancer patients or caretakers who ask for support. We have a monthly email newsletter called, In His Grip, which is sent to 19,000 cancer patients and caretakers and supporters each month. We also post these emails as blog posts on our website - www.mystronghold.org/blog/. Many patients and caretakers respond to these emails for further help, prayer, and support. Hospital and home visits upon request.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 90% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 72% for direct work, and 28% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - 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 fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 73
  • Transparency & Controls: 88
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 27
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 78%; rating input score 78
  • Program expense ratio: 73.5%; rating input score 73
  • Fundraising efficiency: $14.06 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 98.1%; rating input score 98; 60th 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -5.7%; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.56; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 23%; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 4.7% per year; rating input score 100; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2.6% per year; rating input score 100; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 1.4% per year; rating input score 100; 28th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 78% of revenue deployed · 73.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $285K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $89K · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 24 of 25 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2015 to 2025
  • 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 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 46/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 24/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 27/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 16/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 46/100.