Inner City Inclusion
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 923483722
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2025–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2025, Form 990-N 2024
- Location
- Mt Pleasant, MI, USA
- Phone
- 2489301960
- Rating
- 64
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Community, Neighborhood Development
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $20,195
- Expenses
- $9,012
- Assets
- $10,000
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
7 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Carnell Poindexter (CEO)
- Zachary Jones (Vice President)
People named in this filing
- Carnell Poindexter (CEO)
- Zachary Jones (Vice President)
- Nicole Watts (Community Outreach Chair)
Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The organizations primary exempt purpose is to expand access to higher education for low income and underserved students by providing mentorship, resources, and programming that support academic success and college readiness.
What it reported doing in 2025
Inner City Inclusion (ICI) launched a large scale visual awareness initiative by installing oversized college acceptance style stickers across multiple Detroit Public Schools. These installations were designed to normalize college going culture and inspire students to envision themselves in higher education environments. The program directly impacted approximately 2000 students across 5 schools this past year, increasing daily exposure to college messaging in high traffic areas such as hallways and common spaces. This initiative served as both a motivational tool and a conversation starter around post-secondary opportunities, particularly for students who may not otherwise see college as attainable.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 79% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and revenue comfortably covers expenses. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and some filed totals do not add up.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 41
- Transparency & Controls: 100
- Sustainability: 65
- Growth: NotEnoughData
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 28.3%; rating input score 28
- Program expense ratio: 63.5%; rating input score 63
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 55.4%; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.11; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: Limited
- Asset growth: Limited
Details
- Where the money goes: 28.3% of revenue deployed · 63.5% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 3 filed program accomplishments · $6K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 7 people listed
- Consistency: 5 of 7 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
- Schedules: 3 filed schedules
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
- 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 28/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part I part ii net assets crosscheck did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part III transfer expenses within program total did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 50/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.