Peniel Recovery Ministries Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
920948317
IRS 990 coverage
2024–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2023, Form 990-N 2022
Location
Vienna, GA, USA
Phone
2293224665
Rating
63
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Alcohol, Drug Abuse, Treatment Only
Affiliation
Christianity

Reported finances

Revenue
$242,375
Expenses
$71,475
Assets
$343,004
Liabilities
$5

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

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CLAYTON JOHNSON (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • CLAYTON JOHNSON (PRESIDENT): $33,600 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The purpose for the organization is to address the needs of persons who are struggling with hurts, hang-ups, habits, and heartaches by introducing them to the great physician, jesus, who can bring healing to a hurting soul. Furthermore, the organization's ministry is to help persons who are wounded spiritually, emotionally, or relationally, and to provide refuge, restoration, and reconciliation for themselves and, as appropriate, with their families.

What it reported doing in 2024

Peniel recovery ministries, inc. Was established with the mission of providing refuge, restoration, and reconciliation to individuals experiencing spiritual, emotional, or relational struggles. Our ministry focuses on addressing the needs of individuals suffering from hurts, habits, hang-ups, and heartaches by introducing them to the healing power of jesus, known as the great physician. During the initial phase of development, the organization have been focused on laying the groundwork for future service activities. This has included creating organizational structures, building a network of volunteers, and fostering relationships with community partners to ensure that the organization can effectively provide the spiritual and emotional support that is core to our mission. In addition, the organization has been in the processes of acquiring and modeling a facility for use in conducting it's activityies once the facility is established, it would provide space for support groups, counseling services, and family reconciliation programs aimed at promoting personal restoration and holistic well-being. These these programs as the building facility is completed.

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.
  • 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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 40
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 64
  • Sustainability: 76
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 18.9%; rating input score 19
  • Program expense ratio: 64.1%; rating input score 64
  • Fundraising efficiency: $47.43 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • 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: 70.5%; rating input score 96; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.8; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 47%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 59.4% per year; rating input score 100; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 65.8% per year; rating input score 100; 98th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 18.9% of revenue deployed · 64.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 11 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $46K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $34K · 9 people listed
  • Consistency: 23 of 24 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 19/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D land buildings reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 4/100.