Castle Rock Matrix Charitable Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
206091604
IRS 990 coverage
2019–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Mooseheart, IL, USA
Phone
6305364579
Rating
66
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Christianity
Affiliation
Christianity

Reported finances

Revenue
$86,547
Expenses
$56,208
Assets
$2,609,439
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SCOTT MILLER (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • LINDA MILLER (TRUSTEE)
  • MARK MILLER (TRUSTEE)
  • SCOTT MILLER (PRESIDENT)

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

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To fulfill the founders' moral obligations to participate in charitable work and for the express purpose of providing for themselves the ways and means to freely exercise their religous liberties and address obligations required of them as ordained in the old and new testaments. The following biblical references of both the old and new testament provide guidance to the foundation in its mission: deuteronomy 6:5, leviticus 19:18, matthew 22:37-40, corinthians 13:1-13 and matthew 10:8

What it reported doing in 2025

The foundation's activities consist primarily in the making of grants in furtherance of its exempt purpose and social welfare to organizations that engage in their own charitable and social welfare activities. On some occasions or for better focused stewardship, the foundation restricts grants for particular evangelical christian missions of missionaries. For example, the foundation supports missionaries in india through a separate exempt organization called pioneers.

Operating model

Revenue model
Investment-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from recurring investment income.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% 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 the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 53
  • Transparency & Controls: 70
  • Accountability: 76
  • Sustainability: 79
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 35.2%; rating input score 35
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90%; rating input score 90; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 41.3%; rating input score 41; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Scored; rating input score 0

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 43
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: 35.1%; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 46.42; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 0.8% per year; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 9.8% per year; rating input score 100; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 1.3% per year; rating input score 100; 45th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 35.2% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 2 of 2 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $56K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 12 of 13 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes grants and related organizations
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2019 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 2 filed related-organization links
  • 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 35/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 41/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Related-party transparency scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 58/100.