His Harvest Ministries

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
202739749
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2016
Forms available
Form 990 2016, Form 990-EZ 2015
Location
Otsego, MI, USA
Phone
2693302827
Rating
80
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Economic Development

Reported finances

Revenue
$-33,262
Expenses
$229,597
Assets
$50,719
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • WILLIAM NAPP (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • WILLIAM NAPP (PRESIDENT): $3,865 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Residency ministry to troubled youth

What it reported doing in 2016

Residence housing/training for troubled youth; start-up operations

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 79% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 87% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and revenue has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 98
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Accountability: 52
  • Sustainability: 17
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 99.9%; rating input score 100
  • Fundraising efficiency: $46.17 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 80%; rating input score 80; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • 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: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -790.3%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.22; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 1.7%; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: -77.3% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -30% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 99.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 5 board members independent · 1 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $229K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $4K · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 20 of 20 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • 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.

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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 5/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 11/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 22/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.