Remind

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
760206826
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Houston, TX, USA
Phone
7136001131
Rating
67
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,496,775
Expenses
$1,303,934
Assets
$1,939,948
Liabilities
$199,562

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

Leadership & pay

66 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JENNIFER L LEAL (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • JENNIFER L LEAL (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $162,260 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Re: mind provides free and confidential support groups for individuals living with, or family and friends affected by, depression and bipolar disorders.

What it reported doing in 2025

In 2025, re: mind's programming served a total of 3,432 unique individuals and provided 14,588 service units through mental health education, community fairs, resource booths, and both community and online support groups. This was a 26% growth from 2024 service totals. Of the 3,432 unduplicated individuals served, 1,512 individuals participated in community support groups, which are represented by the following numbers: 214 joined online support groups, 591 attended adult community support groups, 555 participated in young adult support groups. 228 attended youth-focused support groups. The remaining 1,920 individuals interacted with re: mind through community education and outreach events. Re: mind completed 37 greater houston community touchpoints, including nine mental health presentations and 29 health fair booths.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 91% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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

SUPPORTED - Most voting board members are independent and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 54
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 53
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 56%; rating input score 56
  • Program expense ratio: 63.9%; rating input score 64
  • Fundraising efficiency: $4.29 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 12.9%; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.49; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.1; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 12.4%; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -1.3% per year; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.7% per year; rating input score 100; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.1% per year; rating input score 100; 36th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 56% of revenue deployed · 63.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 21 of 21 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $833K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $162K · 66 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 32 of 32 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2012 to 2025
  • 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: Mission deployment rate scored 56/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 13/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 55/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 31/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 34/100.