Omega Point Foundation
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 832789480
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2024–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2023
- Location
- Houston, TX, USA
- Phone
- 7135408670
- Rating
- 54
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Research Institutes and Public Policy Analysis
- Affiliation
- Religious (unspecified)
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $28,271
- Expenses
- $21,193
- Assets
- $32,136
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
3 people listed
People named in this filing
- J PHIL ARNOLD (J PHIL ARNOL)
- CHRISTOPHER ECHEBIRI (SECRETARY)
- CAROL WARREN (VP AND TREAS)
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
The Omega Point is the ultimate Goal of humanity. It is the purpose and reason for the existence of everything past, present and future. The purpose of our Omega Point Foundation is to transmit Flares from the Future to illumine the way forward. The complex form of the cosmic process, beginning with the Big Bang, is understandable once the purpose of the process is understood. This purpose is to make possible the free self-creation of new aspects of the being of a created entity, to enable members of that entity to make themselves similar to God in creativity and goodness. God cannot create an entity that is similar to the self-existent God, as God can only create creatures. However God can provide the means, in the Big Bang, to initiate the self-organisation of a series of freely operating cosmic processes, which could lead to the evolution of intelligent animal species. Members of...
What it reported doing in 2024
Counseling: omega point foundation provided counseling and guidance sessions to eight individuals. These sessions included offering information regarding college and university opportunities as well as scholarship and financial sources for these educational goals. The foundation also provided mentoring to twenty persons in the areas of good citizenship responsibilities and character development. These sessions included insights into psychological and philosophical issues pertaining to values and purpose. Served over 25 total.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Other-operating. 67% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 46% for direct work, and 54% for grants.
The verdict
MIXED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 66
- Transparency & Controls: 74
- Accountability: 12
- Sustainability: 60
- Growth: NotEnoughData
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 66%; rating input score 66
- Program expense ratio: 88%; rating input score 88
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 90%; rating input score 90; 13th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 55%; rating input score 55; 46th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
- 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: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 25%; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.52; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: Limited
- Asset growth: Limited
Details
- What they do: Mission, programs, and operating context captured from the official website.
- Where the money goes: 66% of revenue deployed · 88% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 0 of 3 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $19K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
- Consistency: 16 of 17 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes grants
- 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: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
- High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 55/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 30/100.