Nest Presbyterian Church

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
232851971
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2016
Forms available
Form 990 2016
Location
Philadelhpia, PA, USA
Phone
2159271947
Rating
48
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Protestant
Affiliation
Christianity

Reported finances

Revenue
$315,500
Expenses
$293,679
Assets
$386,724
Liabilities
$302,100

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

1 person listed

People named in this filing

  • CHONG TO KIM (PASTOR)

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 2016. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Worship to god

What it reported doing in 2016

Worship to god.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and a relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 49
  • Transparency & Controls: 81
  • Accountability: 6
  • Sustainability: 53
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 53.5%; rating input score 54
  • Program expense ratio: 57.5%; rating input score 57
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90%; rating input score 90; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: Limited
  • 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: 6.9%; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.32; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.78; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • Where the money goes: 53.5% of revenue deployed · 57.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 1 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $169K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 1 people listed
  • Consistency: 18 of 19 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 54/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 57/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D land buildings reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 51/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 9/100.