4B Disaster Response Network

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
823366754
IRS 990 coverage
2018–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Texas City, TX, USA
Phone
4095023040
Rating
64
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Disaster Preparedness and Relief Services
Affiliation
Christianity

Reported finances

Revenue
$588,195
Expenses
$364,576
Assets
$265,829
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JOHN ECKEBERGER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • JOHN ECKEBERGER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $64,310 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

4b disaster response network exists to mobilize a network of churches to reflect the gospel of jesus christ by serving people affected by disasters within our geographical area.

What it reported doing in 2024

Over seven years ago, hurricane harvey devastated the greater houston/galveston area with a recorded 53 inches of rain in a four-day period. Much of what we call the 4b area (from the beltway south to the beaches of galveston, from the bay west to the border with brazoria county) was impacted. Since our founding in late 2017, the 4b drn has served in over 1,800 homes, providing a variety of recovery services. In mid-2018, we turned our attention to five specific types of families: single moms, senior adults, widows, those with disabilities and veterans. These families seemed to be struggling the most to restore their homes, so we made the commitment to bring their homes back to a pre-harvey condition. By the close of 2023, we had totally rebuilt 504 homes at no cost to the homeowner. We remain a "volunteer driven organization with no full-time employees. Over 20,000 volunteers have contributed to the success of the work of the 4b drn since 2017.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 80% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - 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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 52
  • Transparency & Controls: 89
  • Accountability: 69
  • Sustainability: 64
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 47.6%; rating input score 48
  • Program expense ratio: 76.7%; rating input score 77
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 76th 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: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: 38%; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.73; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 17.6%; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -33.1% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -29.4% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -37.6% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 47.6% of revenue deployed · 76.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $280K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $64K · 7 people listed
  • Consistency: 22 of 23 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2018 to 2024
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 48/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 33/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 18/100.