Narrow Gate Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
201748295
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Duck River, TN, USA
Phone
9315830633
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Personal Social Services
Affiliation
Christianity

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,805,339
Expenses
$3,818,628
Assets
$1,717,192
Liabilities
$455,056

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

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • WILLIAM SPENCER (CO-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • STACY SPENCER (CO-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • ERIN MCATEE (DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS): $116,728 total reported compensation
  • ERIC DAVIS (ADMISSIONS DIRECTOR): $116,132 total reported compensation
  • WILLIAM SPENCER (CO-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $115,983 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 provide a christian discipleship experience for young men ages 18-25 desiring to take a pause from the distractions of life to discover who they are and what their purpose is here on earth. This experience includes living in a wilderness environment, participating in community work projects, and studying the bible to help shape them into godly young men.

What it reported doing in 2024

Narrow gate's program is an 8 month program to provide a christian discipleship experience for young men ages 18-25, having them live in a wilderness environment, participate in daily chores and community work projects to build teamwork and develop good work disciplines, going on challenging adventures and studying the bible and other christian curriculum. In 2024, approximately 36 young men participated in narrow gate's program. After graduation, most of these young men either elect to continue their biblical learning and go into full time ministry with churches or non-profit organizations, enter universities to study the passion that god gave them, such as horticulture, health care and business degrees, or elect to serve in the mission field.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 98% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 99% 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. The filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 86
  • Transparency & Controls: 76
  • Accountability: 75
  • Sustainability: 26
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 85.1%; rating input score 85
  • Fundraising efficiency: $5.14 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.1%; rating input score 94; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 43%; rating input score 43; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 75%; rating input score 75; 13th 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: -0.3%; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.45; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.27; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 14%; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 13.7% per year; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 12.5% per year; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 12.4% per year; rating input score 100; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 85.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 12 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $3.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $117K · 14 people listed
  • Consistency: 33 of 34 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2013 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 43/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 18/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 32/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 15/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 20/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 37/100.