Bob Smith Ministries

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
200520609
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2010–2014
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2014
Location
Huntsville, AL, USA
Phone
2567976011
Rating
81
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Christianity
Affiliation
Christianity

Reported finances

Revenue
$149,645
Expenses
$143,884
Assets
$14,820
Liabilities
$10,794

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

People named in this filing

  • ROBERT A SMITH (DIRECTOR)
  • SHERMON ROBERTS (TRUSTEE)
  • RANDLE MIDDLETON (TRUSTEE)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Operation of a christian music ministry

What it reported doing in 2014

Bsmi conducted concerts, conferences, revivals and other events in the states of Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, marylan, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia. The ministry conducted over 197 services of worship, 12 overseas crusade services, 41 conference sessions, 13 senior adult meetings, 26 gospel concerts, 2 weddings and 9 funerals. In addition, we conducted medical missions efforts and evangelistic services in nicaragua. Over the course of these events, a cumulative total in excess of 58,000 people were in attendance. These events were in churches and other venues of every size and shape.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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

STRONG - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. Total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 71
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Sustainability: 34
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 69.6%; rating input score 70
  • Program expense ratio: 72.4%; rating input score 72

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 3.8%; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.1; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.73; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 2.8% per year; rating input score 100; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.9% per year; rating input score 100; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -9% per year; rating input score 0; 18th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 69.6% of revenue deployed · 72.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $104K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 7 of 7 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2010 to 2014
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 11/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 47/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 10/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.