The Mission Collective Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 202383515
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2014–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025, Form 990-N 2014
- Location
- Charleston, SC, USA
- Phone
- 2039217833
- Rating
- 65
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Human Service Organizations
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $12,752
- Expenses
- $2,750
- Assets
- $82,903
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
7 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- PAUL SORENSEN (CEO AND PRES)
People named in this filing
- MICHAEL BANKS (DIRECTOR)
- BRIAN HARDIN (DIRECTOR)
- RICK LYONS (DIRECTOR)
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 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The mission collective was launched in 2014 to plant hubs of missions for north america. To accomplish this objective, we have established share-use open concept, collaborative facilities which allow community leaders of faith and business to commune around common interets and initiatves to inspire and create good works to better serve our cities. Beginning in charleston, these city centric hubs will be utilized for three distict purposes. 1. Coworking space we intend to secure strategically located open-office workspaces that can be used throughout the day for business and nonprofit leaders that we discern are having a positive impact on their cities. These facilities will be flexible, multidimensional, hybrid workspaces that will serve as incubators for leaders and foster intellectual, service and network contributions for business and nonprofit endeavors. On a practical level, these business and nonprofit participants will pay membership fees, which will help offset the costs of the
What it reported doing in 2025
In 2014, the mission collective launched the daniel island fellowship, a new church in an urban development area of charleston. After a year of building relationships in neighborhoods and the city through various means (e.g. Outdoor services, home gatherings, prayer events and intentional days of mission), the daniel island fellowship officially launched on september 13, 2015, with great excitement. A melting pot of individuals and families originally from New York city, boston, chicago, los angeles and the carolinas, the daniel island fellowship now has 555+ regular attendees.words cannot express the healing, hope, and life-change we are seeing through this new community of faith. Effective january 1, 2020, the daniel island fellowship (renamed one fellowship) was spun off into a seperate entity. The spin-off resulted in cash, building, land and other assets being granted to the new entity.
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.
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: 46
- Transparency & Controls: 90
- Accountability: 76
- Sustainability: 85
- Growth: 0
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 21.6%; rating input score 22
- Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: Limited
- Major donor itemization: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
- 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: 78.4%; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 30.15; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -14.6% per year; rating input score 0; 21st percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -18.9% per year; rating input score 0; 20th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -14.5% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 21.6% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $3K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 7 people listed
- Consistency: 11 of 11 current checks pass
- Schedules: 2 filed schedules
- Filing history: 12 filing years from 2014 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
- Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
- 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 22/100.
- Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 6 not reported.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 58/100.