Grad Resources

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
261405618
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2025
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Richardson, TX, USA
Phone
(972) 867-0188
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Religion Related N.E.C.
Affiliation
Religious (unspecified)

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$149,530
Expenses
$154,524
Assets
$68,812
Liabilities
$1,242

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

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • NICK REPAK (President Emeritas)
  • Eli Mercer (Executive Director and CEO)
  • Curtis Hale (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • NICK REPAK (President Emeritas): $72,000 total reported compensation
  • Eli Mercer (Executive Director and CEO): $33,580 total reported compensation
  • Curtis Hale (Executive Director): $19,619 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Grad Resources is a faith based service organization that serves graduate students and their families by addressing the Big 6 Needs of Graduate Students (financial, spiritual, professional, relational, academic, and physical and psychological) so they can flourish and create meaningful change in the communities they serve.

What it reported doing in 2025

Organization mission statement

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 68% 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.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 94
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 69
  • Sustainability: 24
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 98.1%; rating input score 98
  • Program expense ratio: 95%; rating input score 95
  • Fundraising efficiency: $40.01 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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: Limited
  • 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: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -3.3%; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.45; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 81%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -19% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -16.8% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 10.1% per year; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 2 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 98.1% of revenue deployed · 95% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $147K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $72K · 3 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 22 of 22 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2016 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 28/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 23/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 1/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 35/100.