Wilson County Interfaith Services Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
561542631
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Wilson, NC, USA
Phone
2526411999
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Affiliation
Interfaith

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,226,762
Expenses
$1,183,851
Assets
$1,090,901
Liabilities
$780,922

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

Leadership & pay

25 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Richard Childress (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Richard Childress (Executive Director): $80,000 total reported compensation
  • Amanda Creech (Program Director): $57,928 total reported compensation
  • Mike Jones (Pantry Specialist): $33,092 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Our mission is to serve persons in Wilson County NC by providing emergency food for families shelter for those who are homeless and emergency financial assistance while working to remove barriers to accessing affordable quality food and shelter.

What it reported doing in 2024

INDIVIDUALS AND FAMILIES EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS. Wilson Interfaith advances its core values by operating a 20-bed Mens Shelter and a 10-bed Family Shelter Westview House. In 2024-2025 we provided 6,704 nights of safe shelter to 93 men including 11 veterans and 23 families totaling 59 adults and 23 children. Residents received individualized support with employment education affordable housing searches and access to mental health or substance use recovery services. Wilson Interfaith also provided financial assistance for rent utilities and medical needs to help stabilize households during crisis. Through Rapid Rehousing we assisted 44 households 85 individuals in moving from homelessness to stable housing. Through Homelessness Prevention we helped 20 households 44 individuals avoid entering the shelter system. These combined efforts reduced immediate hardship and strengthened long-term housing stability for individuals and families across our community.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 80% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 52% for direct work, and 48% 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 the filed numbers largely add up. The filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 81
  • Transparency & Controls: 61
  • Accountability: 72
  • Sustainability: 36
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 83.4%; rating input score 83
  • Program expense ratio: 86.4%; rating input score 86
  • Fundraising efficiency: $19.2 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 86.7%; rating input score 87; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 0%; rating input score 0; 13th 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: 3.5%; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.92; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.72; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 24.9%; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 11.9% per year; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 12.9% per year; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4.2% per year; rating input score 100; 35th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 83.4% of revenue deployed · 86.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 22 of 22 board members independent · 3 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $80K · 25 people listed
  • Consistency: 44 of 46 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2012 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 8 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: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 57/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 46/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 40/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 10/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 10/100.
  • 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.