Institute in Basic Life Principles
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 366108515
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2020–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Big Sandy, TX, USA
- Phone
- 9036362000
- Rating
- 61
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Christianity
- Affiliation
- Christianity
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $10,618,026
- Expenses
- $5,816,946
- Assets
- $54,384,162
- Liabilities
- $1,146,414
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
6 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- TIM LEVENDUSKY (PRESIDENT)
Highest reported compensation
- ROBERT BARTH (SECRETARY): $113,253 total reported compensation
- BEN ZIESEMER (TREASURER): $78,980 total reported compensation
- TIM LEVENDUSKY (PRESIDENT): $53,627 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The institute in basic life principles was established for the purpose of introducing people to the lord jesus christ and is dedicated to giving individuals, families, churches, schools, communities and businesses clear instruction and training on how to find success by following god's principles found in scripture. These goals are accomplished primarily through seminars, educational programs, printed literature, and the operation of centers to facilitate training.
What it reported doing in 2024
In 2024, biblical teaching materials were created in the form of written, audio, video, and live presentations to teach practical truths from the bible. These christian materials were available for sale and downloads, as well as many free materials for people to access online.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 96% 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.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 62
- Transparency & Controls: 77
- Accountability: 33
- Sustainability: 87
- Growth: 40
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 85.8%; rating input score 86
- Program expense ratio: 42.9%; rating input score 43
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 14th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
- Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
- Requires narrative reports: Fail
- Conducts field audits: Fail
- May suspend future funding: Fail
- Requires financial reports: Pass
- Conducts site visits: Fail
- Requires grant agreements: Fail
- May require repayment: Fail
- Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Scored; rating input score 0
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 25%; rating input score 25; 6th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 4 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 44
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: Fail
- Other executive compensation review process: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 45.2%; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 9.35; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 4.7%; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -4.2% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 27.2% per year; rating input score 100; 96th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -1% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 85.8% of revenue deployed · 42.9% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 1 of 4 board members independent · 4 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $2.5M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $113K · 6 people listed
- Highest-paid contractors: 3 contractors listed · $535K reported
- Consistency: 36 of 37 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and related organizations
- Filing history: 5 filing years from 2020 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 7 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 3 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.
- High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 25/100.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 43/100.
- Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 9 not reported.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 6 of 8 not reported.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Related-party transparency scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 54/100.