Memorial Drive Ministries Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
611871930
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Stone Mountain, GA, USA
Phone
4702405156
Rating
71
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Christianity
Affiliation
Christianity

Reported finances

Revenue
$721,456
Expenses
$608,755
Assets
$1,757,378
Liabilities
$63

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

Leadership & pay

17 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • BEVERLY MARKHAM (PRESIDENT-ELECT)
  • BOBBIE WRENN BANKS (CO-PRESIDENT)
  • BRADLEY KIBLER (CO-PRESIDENT)
  • DAVID ROTH (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • DAVID ROTH (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $98,765 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Memorial drive ministries envisions the end of disconnectedness for refugees and the multicultural community of clarkston. Located in the most diverse square mile in america due to decades of welcoming those fleeing persecution, mdm fosters diverse christian worship, innovative social services, and transformative relationships by offering a shared space for multiple onsite partners: congregations, nonprofits, recreation groups, and community organizations that serve our new neighbors. Mdm provides welcoming space, develops capacity-expanding community, and convenes critical conversations to help us all grow better connected to god, one another, and creation.

What it reported doing in 2025

Worshipping communities: memorial drive ministries, inc. (mdm) provides worship space for multiple different worshipping congregations who worship in multiple different languages. These communities share the sanctuary and chapel spaces, as well as some additional office and classroom spaces. These congregations all serve the refugee and immigrant population and there are many children and youth, low-income families, & english language learners in these congregations.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 91% 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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - 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 the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 62
  • Transparency & Controls: 74
  • Accountability: 79
  • Sustainability: 64
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 62.4%; rating input score 62
  • Program expense ratio: 73.1%; rating input score 73
  • Fundraising efficiency: $7.58 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 85.7%; rating input score 86; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 53.5%; rating input score 54; 34th 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; 64th 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: Pass
    • 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: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 15.6%; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.89; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 16.2%; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 11.9% per year; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 10.1% per year; rating input score 100; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 30.4% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 62.4% of revenue deployed · 73.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 16 of 16 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $445K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $99K · 17 people listed
  • Consistency: 22 of 24 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2020 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 54/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 26/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 22/100.