Haven Missions

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
863859205
IRS 990 coverage
2022–2022
Forms available
Form 990 2022
Location
Mansfield, TX, USA
Rating
59
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Christianity
Affiliation
Christianity

Reported finances

Revenue
$70,716
Expenses
$51,361
Assets
$36,238
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

People named in this filing

  • MATILDA JINADU (DIRECTOR)
  • SIMI DELEAWE (DIRECTOR)
  • DAVID AWE (DIRECTOR)

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 2022. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Haven missions exist to empower a generarion to find safety in christ

What it reported doing in 2022

We host programs that encourgage young people to know christ

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

MIXED - 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 a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 38
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 58
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 36.7%; rating input score 37
  • Program expense ratio: 50.5%; rating input score 51
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • 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: 27.4%; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.71; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • Where the money goes: 36.7% of revenue deployed · 50.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 4 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $53K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $2K reported
  • Consistency: 13 of 13 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 37/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 51/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 18/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.