Men of Nehemiah Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
452041299
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Dallas, TX, USA
Phone
2144216705
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$4,996,791
Expenses
$4,628,621
Assets
$10,355,750
Liabilities
$622,031

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

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • LOUIS HARRELL (FOUNDER/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • NATHAN J RAMSEY (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER/DIRECTOR)
  • SHARON M RUSS (EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT)
  • STEPHEN J DANTONE (VICE PRESIDENT/CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER)

Highest reported compensation

  • LOUIS HARRELL (FOUNDER/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $199,078 total reported compensation
  • NATHAN J RAMSEY (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER/DIRECTOR): $190,534 total reported compensation
  • STEPHEN J DANTONE (VICE PRESIDENT/CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER): $134,064 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 men of nehemiah inc serves the homeless and incarcerated men with addictive disorders by providing residential accomodations and substance abuse training through counseling.

What it reported doing in 2024

Rehabilitation program-provides homeless and formerly incarcerated men with individual discipleship training, addiction treatment including individual, group and family clinical counseling, mentorship, job readiness training, case management, computer literarcy training, and an array of other recovery support services.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 73% 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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 67
  • Transparency & Controls: 61
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 56
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 70.2%; rating input score 70
  • Program expense ratio: 75.7%; rating input score 76
  • Fundraising efficiency: $7.75 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 73.7%; rating input score 74; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 7.4%; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.24; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.06; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 16.2%; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 19.3% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 18.8% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 23.7% per year; rating input score 100; 88th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 70.2% of revenue deployed · 75.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 14 of 14 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $3.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $199K · 16 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 33 of 37 current checks pass · 4 findings to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2012 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 3 filed related-organization links
  • 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: Fundraising efficiency scored 29/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 57/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 17/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D expense reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D land buildings reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D revenue reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.