Servants Heart of Mint Hill Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 812637735
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2017–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025, Form 990-N 2016
- Location
- Charlotte, NC, USA
- Phone
- 7046806533
- Rating
- 59
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Human Service Organizations
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $966,162
- Expenses
- $914,204
- Assets
- $1,280,606
- Liabilities
- $20,569
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
4 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Kimberly Rhodarmer (President)
Highest reported compensation
- Kimberly Rhodarmer (President): $115,000 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 be the primary location in our community for assistance, compassionately providing resources with respect and dignity to those in need.
What it reported doing in 2025
Household Needs consist of the following: BillPay helps families with past due rent, mortgage, electric, gas and water bills. Our purpose is to prevent homelessness through a focus on helping families remain housed. Payments are made to businesses on behalf of our clients. Clients receive budget training/counseling to develop money management skills. Our NonFood Pantry identifies 25 categories of items needed daily or weekly to maintain good health and hygiene. These items cannot be purchased with food stamps. Families receive a 1-month supply of full-sized items. Other assistance includes Client Shopping where clients are given a spending cap based on family size and situation for shopping in our Community Boutique for clothing and household necessities. Through partnerships, additional assistance is provided with car repairs and new bed frames/mattresses for children. These programs impacted 1,892 people in 2025.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- Distribution model
- Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 72% of its reported program spending out as grants.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
The verdict
MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 51
- Transparency & Controls: 60
- Accountability: 65
- Sustainability: 47
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 54.8%; rating input score 55
- Program expense ratio: 59.3%; rating input score 59
- Fundraising efficiency: $1.97 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 84.6%; rating input score 85; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 0%; rating input score 0; 15th 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; 19th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- 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: 5.4%; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.4; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 12.6%; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 8.2% per year; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 11.2% per year; rating input score 100; 65th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 28.9% per year; rating input score 100; 88th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 54.8% of revenue deployed · 59.3% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 3 of 4 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $542K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $115K · 4 people listed
- Consistency: 24 of 26 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
- Filing history: 9 filing years from 2017 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
- 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 55/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 59/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 6/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 46/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 53/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 30/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 55/100.