Amazon Vision Ministries Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
810614920
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Gainesville, FL, USA
Phone
3522260717
Rating
65
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Christianity
Affiliation
Christianity

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$245,572
Expenses
$281,871
Assets
$488,050
Liabilities
$300,433

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

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • Richard Jennings (Operational Director): $26,400 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 bring the hope of christ to the people living in the western amazon basin of brazil. This is accomplished by regular team trips to the western amazon basin. Teams seek to meet medical, dental and other physical needs for the people of the western amazon basin. Also facilitate a program to train future ministry leaders in the amazon basin.

What it reported doing in 2025

During 2025, AVM conducted ten mission trips to the Amazonas region. These teams ministered to 17 different communities, invested countless hours of discipleship and evangelism, including VBS for over 488 children, attended to 183 medical patients, 69 dental patients and led 21 church services. AVM also partnered with Project Indigenous again this year to assist in teaching their seminary program. There were 60 students representing various indigenous tribes.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 84% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 88
  • Transparency & Controls: 44
  • Accountability: 63
  • Sustainability: 27
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 92.4%; rating input score 92
  • Fundraising efficiency: $3.83 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Grant itemization coverage: Scored; rating input score 0
  • 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: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -14.8%; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.73; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.62; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 9.4%; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 1.9% per year; rating input score 100; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -5% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 1.7% per year; rating input score 100; 29th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 92.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 1 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $261K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $26K · 16 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 20 of 21 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2010 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.

  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 17/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 15/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 55/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 7/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 27/100.