Christ In Action Ministries Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
840888130
IRS 990 coverage
2019–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
Location
Elkwood, VA, USA
Phone
7033686286
Rating
60
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Affiliation
Christianity

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$4,495,069
Expenses
$2,704,006
Assets
$6,569,340
Liabilities
$31,845

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

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DENNIS NISSLEY (President & CEO)
  • SANDY NISSLEY (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • DENNIS NISSLEY (President & CEO): $121,000 total reported compensation
  • KEVIN REILLY (Secretary/Treas): $30,000 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Christ In Action is dedicated to the Biblical mandate of reaching those who need to hear the good news of the gospel of Jesus Christ, especially families who have been devastated by natural or man-made disasters primarily across the United States.

What it reported doing in 2024

DISASTERChrist in Action's primary service is to residents who have experienced a natural or man-made disaster. We serve homeowners at no cost to them, relying on donations to allow us to offer physical, spiritual and emotional support. This includes (but is not limite to) tree and debris removal, mucking and gutting homes, utilizing heay equipment to demolish homes that have been completely destroyed, and providing trained chaplains to offer Spiritual and emotional support throughout the process. Our goal is to show the love of Christ in how we serve and help in times of crisis. All services are provided free of charge regardless of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, sexual orientation, or gender idenity.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 96% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 63% for direct work, and 37% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of total spending goes to programs and the filed numbers largely add up. 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: 63
  • Transparency & Controls: 68
  • Accountability: 28
  • Sustainability: 78
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 51.9%; rating input score 52
  • Program expense ratio: 84.5%; rating input score 85
  • Fundraising efficiency: $15.84 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Limited
    • Conducts field audits: Limited
    • May suspend future funding: Limited
    • Requires financial reports: Limited
    • Conducts site visits: Limited
    • Requires grant agreements: Limited
    • May require repayment: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 66.5%; rating input score 67; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 33.3%; rating input score 33; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 22
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 39.8%; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.43; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5.6%; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 47.8% per year; rating input score 100; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 21% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 16.1% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 51.9% of revenue deployed · 84.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 1 of 3 board members independent · 2 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 9 filed program accomplishments · $2.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $121K · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 35 of 36 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and grants
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2019 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 10 filed money-flow records
  • 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: Mission deployment rate scored 52/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 33/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 53/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 49/100.