Puente Ministries Incorporated

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
201000534
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2024
Location
Joplin, MO, USA
Phone
4174342385
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Protestant
Affiliation
Christianity

Reported finances

Revenue
$11,179
Expenses
$9,372
Assets
$32,742
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Donna Cole (President)
  • Elaine Twitchell (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • Jeremey Wolf (Voting Member)
  • Donna Cole (President)
  • Darrin King (Treasurer)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

Religious education, training, and care of Christian church workers in Central America and abroad, including member care workers and volunteers.

What it reported doing in 2024

2023 - Roger Twitchell was able to travel with Blackbox International for translating both training of Dominican workers as well as pastoral care. Various international workers were hosted and encouraged in Joplin, MO. Darrin King worked alongside TRAIN International in debriefing international workers. Roger & Elaine Twitchell themselves received member care, spiritual direction and counseling as they initiated their transition from full time service/work.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of total spending goes to programs. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and some filed totals do not add up.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 62
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Sustainability: 70
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 57.7%; rating input score 58
  • Program expense ratio: 68.9%; rating input score 69

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 16.2%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.49; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -1.9% per year; rating input score 0; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -16.5% per year; rating input score 0; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6.2% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 57.7% of revenue deployed · 68.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 2 filed program accomplishments · $6K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 7 people listed
  • Consistency: 8 of 9 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 58/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part III transfer expenses within program total did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.