Redeemer Theological Seminary Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 263550133
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2017–2017
- Forms available
- Form 990 2016, Form 990-EZ 2017
- Location
- Dallas, TX, USA
- Phone
- 2145286058
- Rating confidence
- Limited
- Sector
- Graduate, Professional Schools (Separate Entities)
- Affiliation
- Christianity
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $0
- Expenses
- $2,467
- Assets
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
4 people listed
People named in this filing
- Brad Bradley (Trustee)
- Jack Denman (Chairman)
- HUGH COMER (Trustee)
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 2017. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Our specific mission is to support the church in its mandate to equip the saints for ministry. We pursue this mission in three ways. First, we seek to form men for ordained gospel ministry as pastors, teachers, evangelists, missionaries, and other tasks specified by the church. Second, we seek to train men and women to serve christ in kingdom ministries other than those that require ordination. Third, we seek to serve as a center for christian research and scholarship and to communicate the fruits of our labors to the church and the world.
What it reported doing in 2017
Prescribe courses of study; employ all necessary professors, teachers, assistants, & officers; acquire property necessary to carry on the work; publish & dispose of such pamphlets, literature, or books as may be required in the conduct of the work; grant certificates and diplomas; grant the degrees of master of divinty and other degrees; perform other functions properly connected with the work of educational institutions of similar character.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent revenue detail to tell how this nonprofit funds its work.
- 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
- The available evidence is not sufficient to produce an overall rating for this filing. This is not a warning sign.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: NotEnoughData
- Transparency & Controls: 82
- Sustainability: 7
- Growth: 0
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: Limited
- Program expense ratio: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
Sustainability
- Operating margin: Limited
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: -32.5% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -47.4% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
- Consistency: 4 of 4 current checks pass
- Schedules: 4 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 — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 2/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.