Give Merit Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
452907584
IRS 990 coverage
2019–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2013
Location
Detroit, MI, USA
Phone
2482501315
Rating
58
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Delinquency Prevention

Reported finances

Revenue
$5,408,123
Expenses
$2,633,507
Assets
$7,628,026
Liabilities
$742,328

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • KUHU SAHA (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR/SECRETARY)
  • DAVID MERRITT (PRESIDENT/BOARD CHAIR)
  • TANISHA STREETER (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • TANISHA STREETER (VICE PRESIDENT): $250,000 total reported compensation
  • KUHU SAHA (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR/SECRETARY): $200,000 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The organization exists to enhance and extend educational opportunities to detroit youth through innovative enrichment, mentorship and athletic activities.

What it reported doing in 2024

Give merit currently serves approximately 200 young people in the city of detroit through its cornerstone program, fate. Fate is a 10-year cohort-based program beginning in the 9th grade and continuing with them through their high school and hopeful college graduation. To date, 100% of fate students have graduated high school and received acceptance to a college/university. Students in the fate program are attending school an average of 5 more days per year, have less suspensions, and higher gpas than students at their school who are not a part of the program. As give merit continues to grow, it looks forward to serving even more young people in the city of detroit.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 74% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 93% 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.

The verdict

MIXED - 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 a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 30
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 79
  • Sustainability: 74
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 18.4%; rating input score 18
  • Program expense ratio: 37.6%; rating input score 38
  • Fundraising efficiency: $28.18 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • 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: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 51.3%; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.9; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.1; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 17.1%; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 13.6% per year; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 38.6% per year; rating input score 100; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 39.7% per year; rating input score 100; 96th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 18.4% of revenue deployed · 37.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $991K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $250K · 8 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 32 of 33 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2019 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 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.
  • 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 18/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 38/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 16/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 59/100.