Sharity Ministries Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
831050344
IRS 990 coverage
2018–2020
Forms available
Form 990 2020
Location
Atlanta, GA, USA
Phone
4044001852
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Group Health Practice (Health Maintenance Organizations)
Affiliation
Christianity

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$129,043,524
Expenses
$129,986,451
Assets
$1,395,232
Liabilities
$224,858

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • A JOSEPH GUARINO III (PRESIDENT D)
  • WILLIAM H THEAD III (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • A JOSEPH GUARINO III (PRESIDENT D): $166,154 total reported compensation
  • WILLIAM H THEAD III (CEO): $140,192 total reported compensation
  • JOSEPH J HANDY (TREASUER DIR): $18,000 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Through god's guidance, bring together people of a common set of religious beliefs for the purpose of voluntarily sharing one another's medical expense burdens and so fulfill the law of christ.

What it reported doing in 2020

As a 501(c)(3) nonprofit charitable organization, sharity ministries, inc, inc., ("organization") brought together thousands of people who share a common set of beliefs for the purpose of sharing one another's medical expense burdens. The organization upholds the biblical command stated in galatians 6:2 to "bear one other's burdens, and so fulfill the law of christ." in 2020, the organization facilitated the voluntary sharing of 36,348,434 in monthly financial gifts among its 21,941 member households to pay for 90,433 medical sharing requests. Additionally, the organization donated 181,000 to other nonprofit charitable organizations in the u.s.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 100% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 63% for direct work, 0% for grants, and 37% for member benefits.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 86
  • Transparency & Controls: 62
  • Accountability: 86
  • Sustainability: 27
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 97.3%; rating input score 97
  • Program expense ratio: 96.6%; rating input score 97
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 85.7%; rating input score 86; 1st 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -0.7%; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.01; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.16; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0.3%; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 77.5% per year; rating input score 100; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 78.9% per year; rating input score 100; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -77.1% per year; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 97.3% of revenue deployed · 96.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 2 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $125.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $166K · 6 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 25 of 27 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2018 to 2020
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 9 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 4 filed related-organization links
  • 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: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 16/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 1/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Independent members within voting members did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.