Fayetteville Urban Ministry
Legal name: Fayetteville Urban Ministry Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 581354139
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Jul 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Fayetteville, NC, USA
- Phone
- 910-483-5944
- Rating
- 84
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Protestant
- Affiliation
- Christianity
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $2,383,108
- Expenses
- $2,585,724
- Assets
- $1,795,082
- Liabilities
- $112,636
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
24 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- JOHNNY WILSON (CEO)
Highest reported compensation
- JOHNNY WILSON (CEO): $151,169 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To show God’s compassion for our neighbors in need, and thus build our community together. "To show God's compassion for our neighbors in need, and thus build our community together." Fayetteville Urban Ministry, Inc. is a community led nonprofit organization dedicated to providing resources to those in need in the Cumberland County, NC area. We strive to be a beacon of hope and a source of assistance to those in our community. We believe that no one should struggle alone and that everyone deserves the chance to succeed. Fayetteville Urban Ministry was organized in 1974 at Hay Street Methodist Church as a project of the local United Methodist District. The initial ministry was to provide emergency assistance to people in need of food, clothing and other resources. In 1976, an adult literacy program was added. In 1980, the Board of Directors voted to become an ecumenical, interfaith...
What it reported doing in 2024
The adult literacy and education program offers assistance with basic literacy and education, english as a second language (esl), american citizenship preparation, financial literacy and one-on-one tutoring.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 65% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 62% for direct work, and 38% for grants.
- 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. Expenses are high relative to revenue and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 90
- Transparency & Controls: 75
- Accountability: 95
- Sustainability: 28
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 96.1%; rating input score 96
- Program expense ratio: 87.8%; rating input score 88
- Fundraising efficiency: $22.22 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- 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: -8.5%; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.69; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.06; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 5.8%; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 8.4% per year; rating input score 100; 57th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 6.8% per year; rating input score 100; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 8.5% per year; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 3 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
- Where the money goes: 96.1% of revenue deployed · 87.8% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 23 of 23 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $2.3M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $151K · 24 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 36 of 36 current checks pass
- Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
- 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.
Key Signals
Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.
Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 15/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 26/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Form 990 shared with the board not reported.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 48/100.
- High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.