Net Increase Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
811825706
IRS 990 coverage
2017–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Plano, TX, USA
Phone
2142808291
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Christianity
Affiliation
Christianity

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$752,666
Expenses
$654,001
Assets
$917,719
Liabilities
$9,826

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • David Roseberry (Executive Director)
  • Todd Dexter (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • David Roseberry (Executive Director): $276,163 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To provide programs to teach leadership techniques to young ministry leaders. Net Increase Foundation, Inc. will also provide a mentor-ship program for young ministry leaders.

What it reported doing in 2025

The organization conducts educational programs that teach leadership to young ministry leaders. We provide mentorship in church planting, organizational development and effective preaching and outreach. Mentoring is accomplished through individual consultations, blog posts, seminars, writing and teaching opportunities. During 2025, over 50,000 people benefited through speaking engagements, seminars, webinars, book distributions and blog posts.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 88% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 63% for direct work, and 37% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 73
  • Transparency & Controls: 57
  • Accountability: 79
  • Sustainability: 52
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 72.2%; rating input score 72
  • Program expense ratio: 81.3%; rating input score 81
  • Fundraising efficiency: $21.41 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 84.6%; rating input score 85; 2nd 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: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: 0 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Fail
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Fail
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 94.4%; rating input score 94; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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: Fail
    • 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: 13.1%; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.4; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 42.2%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 8.5% per year; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.7% per year; rating input score 100; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4.8% per year; rating input score 100; 35th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 72.2% of revenue deployed · 81.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 3 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $532K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $276K · 4 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 28 of 30 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2017 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 12 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 8 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 57/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 53/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 3/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 59/100.