The Well Community Church

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
460870171
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2012
Forms available
Form 990 2012
Location
Kingsburg, CA, USA
Rating confidence
Limited
Sector
Christianity
Affiliation
Christianity

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$670,881
Expenses
$90,416
Assets
$580,501
Liabilities
$36

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2012. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2012. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Our mission is helping people connect to God and to each other in every neighborhood.

What it reported doing in 2012

Rose Torres - Costa Rica with Students International (www.stint.com)Rose has always had a heart for high school ministry and mission work. She has been mentoring and discipling high school students since 1999. In 2010 she had the opportunity to go to Costa Rica with the Well Student Ministry team and felt God calling her to move there and be a part of the Students International (SI) long-term staff.

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

- 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: 76
  • Accountability: 58
  • Sustainability: 83
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: Limited
  • Program expense ratio: Limited
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 87.5%; rating input score 88; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 38.3%; rating input score 38; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 0 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Fail
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 86.5%; rating input score 99; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 6.42; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 29.4%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
  • Governance: 3 of 3 board members independent · 0 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $12K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $27K · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 19 of 20 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 7 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 38/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 6/100.