Father's House Educational Foundation
Legal name: Fathers House Educational Foundation
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 263215842
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2011–2023
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2023
- Location
- Glen Rose, Texas, US
- Phone
- 254-898-3437
- Rating
- 62
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Religion Related N.E.C.
- Affiliation
- Religious (unspecified)
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $485,513
- Expenses
- $313,819
- Assets
- $307,311
- Liabilities
- $196,585
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
14 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- John Turner (Executive Director)
Highest reported compensation
- John Turner (Executive Director): $67,600 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Father’s House Educational Foundation is a grace-based ministry that exists to bless God’s people (Jewish and Gentile) and increase their joy in the Father by creating experiences that: teach biblical texts in the context of their language, land and culture; practice biblical ministry and mercy; and impart biblical legacies for the raising up of godliness in the next generations.
What it reported doing in 2023
Fathers House Educational Foundation enlisted and hosted 1 group on an educational journey to the Holy Land with a total of 43 members. Other journeys were canceled because of terrorist activity in Israel. Fathers House Educational Foundation continued its biblical ministry by speaking engagements video teachings and educational field trips.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Other-operating. 88% 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 total spending goes to programs and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 69
- Transparency & Controls: 55
- Accountability: 62
- Sustainability: 55
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 58.7%; rating input score 59
- Program expense ratio: 90.8%; rating input score 91
- Fundraising efficiency: $15.19 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- 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: 78.6%; rating input score 79; 20th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- 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: 35.4%; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.98; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.64; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 21.5%; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -0.3% per year; rating input score 0; 31st percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 3.7% per year; rating input score 100; 48th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 0.6% per year; rating input score 100; 28th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 9 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 4 operating locations identified
- Where the money goes: 58.7% of revenue deployed · 90.8% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 11 of 14 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $285K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $68K · 14 people listed
- Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $155K reported
- Consistency: 41 of 41 current checks pass
- Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
- Filing history: 10 filing years from 2011 to 2023
- 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.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 59/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 51/100.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 40/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 9/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 17/100.