Miracle Healing Center

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
271756169
IRS 990 coverage
2018–2020
Forms available
Form 990 2020, Form 990-N 2017
Location
McKinney, TX, USA
Phone
4699076782
Rating
67
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Protestant
Affiliation
Christianity

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$767,142
Expenses
$450,626
Assets
$535,685
Liabilities
$200

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Sean Pinder (Pastor, President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Sean Pinder (Pastor, President): $107,500 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Miracle Healing Center preaches the Gospel of Jesus Christ and prays for people through media broadcasts, crusade events, and conferences.

What it reported doing in 2020

Miracle Healing Center preaches the Gospel of Jesus Christ and prays for people through media broadcasts, crusade events, and conferences. Through social media, we conducted nearly 500 meetings through live internet services, prayer meetings, and morning prayer broadcasts. We had a total yearly attendance of almost 100,000. Thousands of people received salvation or rededicated their lives to Christ. Hundreds were healed as prayers were prayed for the sick. The YouTube channel was viewed over 20 million times and reached over 200 nations with the gospel. We held conferences and pastors luncheons in the U.S. and abroad. At these events, the gospel was preached, and the churches were encouraged.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 65% for direct work, and 35% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of total spending goes to programs and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 60
  • Transparency & Controls: 63
  • Accountability: 79
  • Sustainability: 66
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 53.4%; rating input score 53
  • Program expense ratio: 90.8%; rating input score 91
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 10th 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: 74.7%; rating input score 75; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 41.3%; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.19; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 23.9%; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 43.9% per year; rating input score 100; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 47.7% per year; rating input score 100; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 74.9% per year; rating input score 100; 98th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 53.4% of revenue deployed · 90.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 3 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $409K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $108K · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 29 of 31 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes foreign activity and grants
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2018 to 2020
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 6 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 53/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 8 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 43/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 12/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.