KiDs Beach Club

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
204073308
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Euless, TX, USA
Phone
8175105885
Rating
62
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Youth Development – Religious Leadership
Affiliation
Christianity

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,682,675
Expenses
$1,387,231
Assets
$1,159,741
Liabilities
$305,378

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Jack Terrell (CEO)
  • Dr Frank Banfill (Vice President)
  • Craig Vanbebber (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Jack Terrell (CEO): $136,333 total reported compensation
  • Craig Vanbebber (Vice President): $110,019 total reported compensation
  • Dr Frank Banfill (Vice President): $40,253 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

KiDs Beach Club is an innovative ministry established to mobilize the church to go outside their walls in order to take the message of Christ into the heart of their community.

What it reported doing in 2024

After-school Bible Clubs: 9,061 students enrolled in 126 schools across 13 states; 2,542 volunteers; Bible Distribution: 2,938 childrens study Bibles distributed; Television Programming: Completed dubbing into Farsi for expansion into Middle East; Estimated 150,000 children watched in the U.S.; 200 countries were able to view the program at least twice each week.

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 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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - 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 few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 50
  • Transparency & Controls: 61
  • Accountability: 89
  • Sustainability: 50
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 51.4%; rating input score 51
  • Program expense ratio: 62.2%; rating input score 62
  • Fundraising efficiency: $3.82 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 90%; rating input score 90; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 17.6%; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.84; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.26; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 20.7%; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -0.6% per year; rating input score 0; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.1% per year; rating input score 100; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 13.3% per year; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 51.4% of revenue deployed · 62.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 10 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $863K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $136K · 12 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 44 of 45 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 51/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 12/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 37/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 14/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 27/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.