Campus Renewal Ministries

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
742876018
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2016
Forms available
Form 990 2016
Location
Austin, TX, USA
Phone
5123315991
Rating
82
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Christianity
Affiliation
Christianity

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$810,674
Expenses
$932,614
Assets
$125,068
Liabilities
$16,898

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JEREMY STORY (President/Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • JEREMY STORY (President/Director): $122,800 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To unite campus ministry leaders and

What it reported doing in 2016

Campus renewal created a network of most every college focused parachurch and church organization in america to map out collectively which campuses each are touching and which they are not yet reaching. For the first time in american histroy, christians who work with college students can know which campuses are unreached and thus where to focus their efforts. We also have launched www.campusministrylink.org which allows college bound high school seniors to connect with a church and/or ministry before they arrive on the college campus where they will attend. This will help solve the 60% to 70% loss of high school seniors coming out of local churches who never return after college. Campus renewal also facilitated ongoing local united mission and prayer movements between all the christian groups, ministries and churches on a variety of colleges across america.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 97% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 82
  • Transparency & Controls: 93
  • Accountability: 76
  • Sustainability: 15
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 90.1%; rating input score 90
  • Program expense ratio: 77.9%; rating input score 78
  • Fundraising efficiency: $16.09 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 85.7%; rating input score 86; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -15%; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.13; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.14; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 13.2%; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 0.9% per year; rating input score 100; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.7% per year; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 9.6% per year; rating input score 100; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 90.1% of revenue deployed · 77.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 7 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $726K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $123K · 7 people listed
  • Consistency: 27 of 28 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2011 to 2016
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 10/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 57/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 6/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D land buildings reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 25/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 45/100.