First Priority Global Ministries

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
260701963
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2022
Forms available
Form 990 2022, Form 990-EZ 2016
Location
Thompsons Station, TN, USA
Phone
6155049646
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Protestant
Affiliation
Christianity

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,859,890
Expenses
$1,748,318
Assets
$716,213
Liabilities
$44,338

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2022. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • BENNY PROFFITT (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • BENNY PROFFITT (CEO): $72,166 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2022. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To present the good news of jesus christ to people throughout the world, to launch new ministry endeavors, and to engage in any activity that would further advance the kingdom of god in this world.

What it reported doing in 2022

2. SOUTH AISA. Existing youth ministries among several countries in South Asia saw teens being trained, mobilized and fruitful among their peers. Additionally, humanitarian aid, such as food and education, coupled with preaching the Gospel resulted in hundreds of new converts who were baptized and new bamboo structures were built for weekly church services, and construction on our first Mission Connection Center was completed. The previously stated, and never-ending goal of vision casting, enlisting, and training new coaches, who, in turn, develop new First Priority youth ministry clubs with teen ministers, multiplied in Southeast Asia in 2021, even including ministry being started among national soccer teams of Nepal, and trekkers in the Everest Region.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 99% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 42% for direct work, and 58% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 88
  • Transparency & Controls: 60
  • Accountability: 68
  • Sustainability: 43
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 86.8%; rating input score 87
  • Program expense ratio: 92.3%; rating input score 92
  • Fundraising efficiency: $72.13 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 86.7%; rating input score 87; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Fail
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 40.2%; rating input score 40; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 80%; rating input score 80; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • 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: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 6%; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.41; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.06; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.1%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 35% per year; rating input score 100; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 23.7% per year; rating input score 100; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 24.7% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 86.8% of revenue deployed · 92.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 5 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $1.6M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $72K · 7 people listed
  • Consistency: 27 of 29 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2010 to 2022
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 7 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 40/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 17/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 53/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 52/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.