Mt Gilead Community Development Corporation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
710985879
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
Location
Richmond, VA, USA
Phone
8046757600
Rating
60
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support
Affiliation
Christianity

Reported finances

Revenue
$427,609
Expenses
$446,343
Assets
$70,449
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • BISHOP DANIEL ROBERTSON JR (DIRECTOR): $350,410 total reported compensation
  • KENNETH MITCHELL (DIRECTOR): $157,499 total reported compensation
  • TERRY GRAVES (DIRECTOR): $155,000 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Mt. Gilead community development corporation is a christian mission dedicated to serving as a vehicle for community empowerment, for self-directed unified action, with the expressed purpose of solving community (targeted) problems. This includes economic deprivation, inferior education, poor housing, elderly isolation and abandonment and those social problems which tarnish the spirit of urban revitalization.

What it reported doing in 2024

We are grateful for the three transitional homes that provide a "hand up" for families who are facing temporary crisis situations. The treasure wythe inn 1, 2 and 3 provide safe havens for families while providing necessary support for them to become stable. The three 2024 families benefited from financial support, life skills training, and counseling to ensure that they would be successful after their stay in the transitional facility.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 89% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 70% for direct work, and 30% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 78
  • Transparency & Controls: 60
  • Accountability: 24
  • Sustainability: 26
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 88.6%; rating input score 89
  • Program expense ratio: 85.3%; rating input score 85
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 41.3%; rating input score 41; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 57
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Limited
    • Other executive compensation review process: Limited
    • 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: 0.16; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: Limited

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 2.8% per year; rating input score 100; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 0.8% per year; rating input score 100; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6.9% per year; rating input score 100; 55th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 88.6% of revenue deployed · 85.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 4 board members independent · 4 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $381K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $350K · 4 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 16 of 17 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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.

  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 41/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 6 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 30/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 9/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.