Mercy House Ministries Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
752665980
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2010
Location
Colleyville, TX, USA
Phone
6822330853
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Housing, Shelter N.E.C.

Reported finances

Revenue
$322,002
Expenses
$336,240
Assets
$638,652
Liabilities
$324,096

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Yvonne Schnitzius (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Lisa Barnes (Director): $67,658 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To equip and empower single, pregnant women with a safe, nurturing home, pregancy care, life skills training and Christian discipleship to establish a sold foundation for two lives.

What it reported doing in 2024

See Schedule O Mercy House is a non-profit ministry serving single adult women who are pregnant, homeless, and under duress. House directors and staff care for residents, and each woman is invited to stay for up to one year after birth. The average stay at Mercy House can be six months to one year in most circumstances. Our goal for each resident is graduation from our program with a healthy baby, personnl healing, restoration, feeling equipped to parent, or empowered and supported to place their baby for adoption. During their stay with us, we prioritize emotional healing from trauma, learning life skills, parenting education, and acquistion of a higher level of education than previously achieved. This ranges from working for a general equivalency diploma, acquiring education for a technical trade or online attendance of college classes. We focus heavily on emotional and spiritual restoration and resolution. These goals are achieved through the teamwork of the staff, various volunteers and professional skilled workers who offer their services. Twelve women and seven babies were served on a long-term basis this year in our residential home. These services include midwifery and medical obstetrics care, childbirth education and dental and chiropractic care. We also provide professional services and classes to include Celebrate Recovery, private counseling, nutritional training, emotional and spiritual healing and recovery and our parent education course, Brightcourse. We assisted each resident in obtainig WIC, Medicaid, and exploring educational advancement. In some cases, Mercy House funded their educational requirements through grant funds or personal scholarships.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% 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 - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 54
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 79
  • Sustainability: 35
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 58.1%; rating input score 58
  • Program expense ratio: 55.6%; rating input score 56
  • Fundraising efficiency: $6.21 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • 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: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -4.4%; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.9; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.51; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 20.1%; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 2.5% per year; rating input score 100; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.2% per year; rating input score 100; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 17.4% per year; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 58.1% of revenue deployed · 55.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 4 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $187K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $68K · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 26 of 26 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2013 to 2024
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 58/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 56/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 27/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 30/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 58/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 11/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 19/100.