Ascension
Legal name: Ministry Home Care Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 391936201
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2009–2014
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2014
- Location
- St. Louis, MO, US
- Phone
- 314-733-8000
- Rating
- 53
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Home Health Care
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $30,078,518
- Expenses
- $26,122,155
- Assets
- $0
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
18 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Jerry L Cleveland (President & CEO)
- Nicholas Desien (Ministry Health Care CEO)
Highest reported compensation
- Nicholas Desien (Ministry Health Care CEO): $2,153,146 total reported compensation
- Dan Neufelder (Board Member): $1,089,014 total reported compensation
- Jeffrey L Martin (Chairperson): $1,041,704 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Rooted in the loving ministry of Jesus as healer, we commit ourselves to serving all persons with special attention to those who are poor and vulnerable. Our Catholic health ministry is dedicated to spiritually centered, holistic care which sustains and improves the health of individuals and communities. We are advocates for a compassionate and just society through our actions and our words.
What it reported doing in 2014
Infusion or IV Therapy - includes the medication and all supplies for administration and care. An RN teaches the patient/caregiver how to administer the drug and supplies.Supportive Care, Lifeline, and Rebates
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 88% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- 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
MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 58
- Transparency & Controls: 71
- Accountability: 32
- Sustainability: 42
- Growth: 0
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 62.4%; rating input score 62
- Program expense ratio: 71.8%; rating input score 72
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Missing
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: Limited
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Fail
- Other executive compensation review process: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 13.2%; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
- Officer compensation ratio: 4.9%; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -50.1% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -2.4% per year; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -18.6% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 2 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
- Where the money goes: 62.4% of revenue deployed · 71.8% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 0 of 11 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $18.8M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $2.2M · 18 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 3 contractors listed · $877K reported
- Consistency: 31 of 31 current checks pass
- Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, executive pay, and related organizations
- Filing history: 5 filing years from 2009 to 2014
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 6 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 36 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.
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: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 39/100.
- High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.