Spiritual Centre Regeneration

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
474388603
IRS 990 coverage
2017–2018
Forms available
Form 990 2018
Location
Houston, TX, USA
Phone
2814960202
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Religion Related N.E.C.
Affiliation
Christianity

Reported finances

Revenue
$399,711
Expenses
$403,723
Assets
$131
Liabilities
$100

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2018. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Ralph W Neighbour (President, Dir.)

People named in this filing

  • Ralph W Neighbour (President, Dir.)
  • William A Beckham (V.P., Director)
  • Paul E Martin (Sec/Treas, Dir.)

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 2018. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The mission of the organization is to serve as a religious center representing the All-Ukrainian Religious Association of Charismatic Religious Communities of the Full Gospel "Regeneration".

What it reported doing in 2018

In 2018, the organization provided financial assistance to the Charismatic Religious Community of the Full Gospel "Regeneration", Ukraine. These funds were directed to pay for the Christian channel that operates 24 hours/day on the TV satellites HOTBIRD 19, AMOS 7, ASTRAV19, ASTRA SES, broadcasting Bible teaching to the Russian communities around the world. (None of the funds were directed to the profit of any individual.)

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 86
  • Transparency & Controls: 67
  • Accountability: 76
  • Sustainability: 28
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 97%; rating input score 97
  • Program expense ratio: 96%; rating input score 96
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Fail
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: No; rating input score 0
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 43
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • 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: -1%; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.76; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 24.4% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 26.7% per year; rating input score 100; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -187.7% per year; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 97% of revenue deployed · 96% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 4 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $388K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 15 of 15 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2017 to 2018
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 7 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Major donor itemization scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 1/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 38/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 9/100.