Nami Greater Houston

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
760242186
IRS 990 coverage
2019–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Houston, TX, USA
Phone
7139704419
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Public Foundations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$583,229
Expenses
$945,470
Assets
$76,365
Liabilities
$132,534

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

Leadership & pay

18 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Angelina Hudson (Chief Executive Officer)
  • Leslie Buck (Vice President)
  • Charlzetta McMurray-Horton (President)
  • Brenda LaVar (President Emeritus)

Highest reported compensation

  • Angelina Hudson (Chief Executive Officer): $110,000 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

NAMI Greater Houston is a nonprofit, tax-exempt corporation chartered in 1988 to improve the lives of all persons affected by mental illness by providing support, education, and advocacy through a grassroots network.

What it reported doing in 2024

In 2024, NAMI documented 4,855 registrations in NAMI Family and Recovery Support Groups, both online and virtually. Volunteer program leaders served 3,600 participants in Restorative Justice Groups using NAMI's Connection Recovery Support model and presenting In Our Own Voice presentations. 1,255 first-time registrants participated in NAMI Support groups representing 4 Texas counties included in our service area. 2,250 Participants enrolled in Outreach and advocacy events either for training or active advocacy events. The Support Education Advocacy Center (SEA) and warmline managed 9,646 Calls and referrals handled by a team of peer leaders.

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 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 the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of total spending goes to programs and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 64
  • Transparency & Controls: 70
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 6
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 83.2%; rating input score 83
  • Program expense ratio: 51.3%; rating input score 51
  • Fundraising efficiency: $1.56 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • 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: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -62.1%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.08; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 1.74; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 11.6%; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 3.3% per year; rating input score 100; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 0.7% per year; rating input score 100; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 2.9% per year; rating input score 100; 29th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 83.2% of revenue deployed · 51.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 19 of 19 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $485K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $110K · 18 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 37 of 38 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2019 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 51/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 4/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 2/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 4/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 2/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 32/100.