Ipc National Charitable Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
201836543
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Dallas, TX, USA
Phone
9725031040
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Philanthropy, Voluntarism, and Grantmaking Foundations N.E.C.
Affiliation
Christianity

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,002,721
Expenses
$755,383
Assets
$9,761,798
Liabilities
$300,000

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

People named in this filing

  • DONALD B HARRIS (PRES/DIRECTOR)
  • CARL W FORSYTHE (SEC/DIRECTOR)
  • RANDALL S GODFREY (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 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To provide support to organizations and/or activities that are not antithetical to the christian faith. Within that context, the primary area of focus is to provide support to organizations and/or activities that promote justice and righteousness throughout the world. Among other things, this focus on justice/righteousness would include, but not be limited to, feeding and/or caring for the poor, widows, and/or orphans; and/or meeting the living and/or educational needs of those who otherwise have insufficient means to provide adequately for themselves. We accomplish the foregoing primarily by: 1) establishing and overseeing the activities of donor advised funds for individuals whose giving interests are consistent with our mission statement; 2) establishing and overseeing the activities of single member llc's (i.e. Subsidiary organizations) to focus on meeting the needs of specific justice/righteousness issues which are consistent with our mission statement; and 3) establishing and ove

What it reported doing in 2024

Grants were made primarily to various domestic organizations whose purposes were deemed to be consistent with the organization's mission statement.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 74% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 94% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • 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. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 84
  • Transparency & Controls: 67
  • Accountability: 45
  • Sustainability: 82
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 92%; rating input score 92
  • Program expense ratio: 98.3%; rating input score 98
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 85.7%; rating input score 86; 2nd 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: 91.1%; rating input score 91; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 66.7%; rating input score 67; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 1 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 14
    • 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: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 24.7%; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 12.92; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 3.1% per year; rating input score 100; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.1% per year; rating input score 100; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 9.1% per year; rating input score 100; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 92% of revenue deployed · 98.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 2 of 3 board members independent · 1 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $742K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 23 of 25 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and grants
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 22 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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: Governance controls: 5 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 8 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 58/100.