National Institute of Marriage

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
860418475
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2013
Forms available
Form 990 2013
Location
Branson, MO, USA
Phone
4173355882
Rating
66
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Family Counseling

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,213,789
Expenses
$1,332,704
Assets
$1,401,341
Liabilities
$524,941

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2013. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ROBERT PAUL (CO-PRESIDENT)
  • MARK PYATT (CO-PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • ROBERT PAUL (CO-PRESIDENT): $142,214 total reported compensation
  • MARK PYATT (CO-PRESIDENT): $139,480 total reported compensation
  • JEFF FLOURNOY (CHAIRMAN): $39,147 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2013. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Ministry to marriage and families and family and marriage relationship counseling

What it reported doing in 2013

Through the intensives, our team members accomplish three very important goals: restoring couples, remaining connected to god's desire and ability to transform marriages, and, to continue learning, applying, and teaching the life-changing concepts that result in successful marriages. 442 family and marriage relationship counseling participants complete survey's after the intensive: over 97% have been very satisfied with their intensive.approximately 96% have been very satisfied with their leaders. For over 94%, the experience exceeded their expectations. Approximately 78% said the intensive will make a great deal of difference to them personally. Approximately 70% said the intensive will make a great deal of difference to their marriage.

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.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 64
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 59
  • Sustainability: 25
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 72.8%; rating input score 73
  • Program expense ratio: 67.8%; rating input score 68
  • Fundraising efficiency: $2.79 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings

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: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 70%; rating input score 70; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 44
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -9.8%; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.05; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.37; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 24.2%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: -15.9% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -2.5% per year; rating input score 0; 26th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 72.8% of revenue deployed · 67.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 10 board members independent · 4 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $904K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $142K · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 27 of 27 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2012 to 2013
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 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.

  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 10/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 15/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 48/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 8/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 28/100.