Dear Neighbor Ministries Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
481251656
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Wichita, KS, USA
Phone
3166845120
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,364,642
Expenses
$689,241
Assets
$1,419,362
Liabilities
$29,965

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JASON WEST (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • JASON WEST (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $94,519 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Dear neighbor ministries was founded in 2001 by the congregation of st. Joseph in the hilltop neighborhood of wichita. Seeing the poverty in their neighborhood, the sisters began delivering meals to nearby families. This simple gesture quickly grew into a vibrant community hub as the sisters realized that more than food was needed to address their neighbors' needs. Today, dear neighbor ministries offers a food pantry, emergency rent and utility assistance, advocacy, financial literacy education, a community garden, and outreach to our neighbors. Rooted in hospitality and relationship, dear neighbor is a welcoming place where neighbors can find help and are treated with dignity and respect.

What it reported doing in 2024

See schedule oin fiscal year 2025, dear neighbor ministries' community food pantry served food to neighbors 19,364 times. Numerous new partnerships with local farms were established to provide the freshest possible produce to neighbors who utilize our pantry, and a food choice system was implemented as part of our intake process. Through our homelessness prevention program, we helped 162 families avoid eviction or utilities shutoff by providing emergency financial assistance and advocacy. We hosted 67 community events at the hilltop community center including resource fairs, holiday celebrations, workshops, and more, all designed to build community resilience and foster connection among residents of the hilltop neighborhood.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 99% 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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 43
  • Transparency & Controls: 87
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 76
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 31.7%; rating input score 32
  • Program expense ratio: 61.3%; rating input score 61
  • Fundraising efficiency: $11.6 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.1%; rating input score 94; 25th 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: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 49.5%; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.06; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 2.9%; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 6% per year; rating input score 100; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 12.3% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4.3% per year; rating input score 100; 35th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 31.7% of revenue deployed · 61.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $423K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $95K · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 30 of 31 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2015 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • Related organizations: 2 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 32/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 43/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 57/100.