Great Commission Center International

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
954314022
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2017
Forms available
Form 990 2017
Location
Sunnyvale, CA, USA
Phone
4086360030
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Christianity
Affiliation
Christianity

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,520,258
Expenses
$693,237
Assets
$1,797,583
Liabilities
$3,721

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DR SHARON CHAN (President & CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • DR SHARON CHAN (President & CEO): $92,678 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The great commission center international is in partnership with evangelical churches and para-church groups for the accomplishment of the great commission of our lord jesus christ:1) to reach the unreached peoples.2) to gather and distribute mission information so as to arouse global mission awareness among churches.3) to promote mission education and cultivate missionaries4) to mobilize christians to participate actively in in global missions.

What it reported doing in 2017

Global missionto engage in long and short-term missionary works and to establish mission fields and churches among unreached people, then hand over tasks to other churches or missionary organizations before continuing such work elsewhere.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 77% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 76% for direct work, and 24% 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: 82
  • Transparency & Controls: 60
  • Accountability: 74
  • Sustainability: 79
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 79.5%; rating input score 79
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 0 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Fail
    • 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: 93.9%; rating input score 94; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: No; rating input score 0
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • 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: 54.4%; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.59; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 13.4%; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 8.9% per year; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 14.8% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 9.4% per year; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 79.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $551K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $93K · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 29 of 30 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and grants
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2010 to 2017
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 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.

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 — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 8 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Major donor itemization scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 24/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization is recorded as not currently operating in California.