I.M.P.A.C.T. Church Empowerment Program

A partnership with Pastor Lee Jenkins, the Stewardship Coach, and Allan Bell - CPA, CMA, MBA, Nsites founder and creator

M3 Money · Lesson 4 of 4

Lesson 4 — Controls, Reporting, and Financial Action

Protect church assets and establish decision-ready reporting.

Not started

Nine M curriculum version 1.0 · Nine M methodology, content, exercises and deliverables by Pastor Lee Jenkins.

Where this lesson sits

Curriculum version 1.0 · Pastor Lee Review

Module purpose: Strengthen stewardship, financial visibility, giving, budgeting, cash flow, controls, reserves, and long-term sustainability.

Official outcome: Church Financial Health and Stewardship Plan

This lesson produces: Internal Controls Walkthrough and Remediation Register

Anything you type is kept in this browser session only. This prototype does not save to a server.

Learn

Participant study reading — approximately 75 minutes of learning and shared work.

Learning objective: Protect church assets and establish decision-ready reporting.

Recommended participants: Pastor, treasurer, financial secretary or counting team lead, and a board member

Estimated teaching time: 75 minutes

Success indicators

  • • Every step of the offering-to-deposit-to-reporting process has been walked through and documented
  • • Every gap in separation of duties, counting, deposit, or approval has been named without assigning blame
  • • A remediation register exists with a named owner and target date for every identified gap
  • • Leadership can describe how the completed Church Financial Health and Stewardship Plan will be reviewed on a recurring basis

Materials and evidence you will use

  • • Written or informal description of the current counting and deposit process
  • • List of who currently has check-signing or approval authority
  • • Completed artifacts from lessons one through three
  • • Every process step documented by the person who performs it
  • • Every gap assigned a named owner and target date or adoption status

What you should be able to produce

  • • Every step of the offering-to-deposit-to-reporting process has been walked through and documented
  • • Every gap in separation of duties, counting, deposit, or approval has been named without assigning blame
  • • A remediation register exists with a named owner and target date for every identified gap
  • • Leadership can describe how the completed Church Financial Health and Stewardship Plan will be reviewed on a recurring basis

Foundational ministry principle

1 Corinthians 4:2

2 Moreover it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful.

King James Version (KJV) · Public domain

This verse ties faithfulness directly to being found trustworthy as a steward, and is proposed here to frame internal controls as protecting trust rather than expressing suspicion of any individual.

As a draft closing frame for the module, the facilitator might suggest that strong controls are how a church honors both its stewards and the trust of its congregation at the same time, pending Pastor Lee Jenkins' review of this specific application.

Understand the concept

Your work in this lesson focuses on this outcome: Protect church assets and establish decision-ready reporting.

Strong controls protect faithful people as much as they protect church assets, and this final artifact completes the Church Financial Health and Stewardship Plan the module set out to build.

Why it matters for your church

A single point of control over offering counting or bank reconciliation exposes both the church and the volunteer to unnecessary risk.

Undocumented processes make it difficult to train new volunteers consistently or investigate discrepancies when they occur.

Without a recurring review cadence, even a well-built plan quickly goes stale and stops guiding real decisions.

Examine the evidence

Use Written or informal description of the current counting and deposit process, List of who currently has check-signing or approval authority, and Completed artifacts from lessons one through three to compare your church's present practice with its stated intentions. Look for documented patterns, missing information, and differences between what people assume and what the evidence supports.

Your completed work should be supported by Every process step documented by the person who performs it, and Every gap assigned a named owner and target date or adoption status. Record uncertainty honestly so your team knows what still needs to be verified.

Prepare for the shared exercise

Document actual financial handling practices, identify control gaps, and assign ownership for closing each one. The Internal Controls Walkthrough and Remediation Register produces the Internal Controls Walkthrough and Remediation Register, which contributes to the module's principal deliverable.

Before working with your team, consider this reflection: What is one control gap in our current process that, once named, seems obvious in hindsight, and why did it take this long to see it?

Key terms

Separation of duties
Structuring financial tasks so that no single person controls a process from start to finish, reducing risk of error or misuse.
Remediation register
A tracked list of identified control gaps, each with a recommended fix, an owner, and a target date.
Approval threshold
A defined dollar amount above which an expense requires a second person's authorization before payment.

What this means for a church

  • • A single point of control over offering counting or bank reconciliation exposes both the church and the volunteer to unnecessary risk
  • • Undocumented processes make it difficult to train new volunteers consistently or investigate discrepancies when they occur
  • • Without a recurring review cadence, even a well-built plan quickly goes stale and stops guiding real decisions

Common failure patterns

  • • Assuming a long-tenured, trusted volunteer makes strong controls unnecessary
  • • Writing a controls policy once and never checking whether it is actually being followed
  • • Completing the financial plan for this module and never scheduling a follow-up review

Ministry case

A Fix That Cost Nothing

A small congregation discovered during its controls walkthrough that the same volunteer had counted the offering alone for over a decade out of long-standing trust and convenience, with no one questioning it because she was universally respected. The finance committee realized this exposed her personally to risk of suspicion far more than it protected the church.

The fix cost nothing: the church simply began rotating a second counter each week from a small trained pool of volunteers, which took less than a month to implement and immediately removed the single point of exposure for everyone involved, including the original volunteer, who reported feeling relieved rather than replaced.

Lesson takeaway

Strong controls protect faithful people as much as they protect church assets, and this final artifact completes the Church Financial Health and Stewardship Plan the module set out to build.

Discuss

Guided discussion for the leadership table.

With the register built and the module's artifacts in hand, let's talk about how we will keep this plan active rather than letting it become a document we produced once and never revisit.

  1. Which control gap feels most urgent to fix, and why?
  2. Who will own bringing this full plan back to the board each quarter?
  3. What is the lowest-cost fix we could implement in the next two weeks?
  4. How will we know, six months from now, that this plan actually changed how we operate?

Practice

Applied exercise — produces the Internal Controls Walkthrough and Remediation Register.

Internal Controls Walkthrough and Remediation Register

Document actual financial handling practices, identify control gaps, and assign ownership for closing each one.

Estimated time: 45 minutes

Participants: Pastor, treasurer, financial secretary or counting team lead, and a board member

Artifact produced: Internal Controls Walkthrough and Remediation Register

Required inputs

  • • Description of current counting, deposit, recording and approval process
  • • List of current approval and signing authority

Instructions

  1. Walk through every step money takes from receipt to reporting, in the order it actually happens.
  2. At each step, ask who is present, whether it is ever done by one person alone, and how quickly it happens.
  3. Document current approval thresholds and who reconciles the bank statement.
  4. Identify every point where separation of duties is missing or inconsistent.
  5. For each gap, record the risk it creates in plain language.
  6. Recommend a specific, low-cost fix for each gap where possible.
  7. Assign a named owner and target date to every fix on the register.
Complete it online

Internal Controls Walkthrough and Remediation Register

  • Church name: ______________________
  • Date of walkthrough: ______________________
  • Facilitator: ______________________
Process stepGap identifiedRisk createdRecommended fixOwner and target date
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     

Worked example

A fully completed sample using a fictional church. This is illustrative teaching material, not any church's actual data.

Harvest Point Church (illustrative example — not actual church data)

Harvest Point Church is a fictional congregation of about 190 attendees used to model a completed controls walkthrough.

Process stepGap identifiedRisk createdRecommended fixOwner and target date
Offering countingSame two volunteers count every single week with no rotationFamiliarity risk and no independent check over timeRotate a third trained volunteer into the count monthlyFinancial secretary, Grace T. — in 30 days
Expense approvalNo dollar threshold requiring a second signatureA large unbudgeted expense could be approved by one person aloneSet a $500 threshold requiring treasurer and one board member sign-offBoard, adopted this meeting
Bank reconciliationTreasurer both approves expenses and reconciles the accountNo independent check on the treasurer's own entriesHave the board finance chair review the reconciliation quarterlyFinance chair, Ray P. — starting next quarter

How this leadership team reasoned

  • • Harvest Point's team recognized that none of the gaps found reflected any wrongdoing, only structural exposure that had built up gradually as the church grew.
  • • The team prioritized the counting rotation and approval threshold as the lowest-cost, fastest fixes to implement first.

Decisions recorded

  • • The board formally adopted the $500 dual-approval threshold effective immediately.
  • • Grace T. was asked to build a rotating three-person counting schedule within thirty days.

Completed artifact extract — Internal Controls Walkthrough and Remediation Register

Remediation Register summary: three control gaps identified, none reflecting misconduct. All three now have named owners and target dates, with the approval-threshold fix already adopted by the board this meeting.

Illustrative exercise score: 18 of 20. Harvest Point's team documented the process thoroughly, framed every gap without blame, and produced specific, low-cost, owned fixes, with only the reconciliation review needing a firmer start date.

Score

Transparent 20-point exercise rubric: four criteria rated 0 to 5 with observable anchors.

Criterion0 — not evident3 — acceptable5 — exemplarySample
Completeness (0–5)Only one or two process steps were walked through.The full process was walked through but some gaps were left without a recommended fix.The full process was walked through and every identified gap has a documented risk and recommended fix.5
Use of evidence (0–5)Gaps were assumed without anyone describing the actual current process.Some steps were described by the person who performs them, others were assumed by the facilitator.Every step was described directly by the person who actually performs it.5
Alignment to the module purpose (0–5)The walkthrough treated controls as a compliance exercise disconnected from the rest of the module's financial plan.The walkthrough was completed but not explicitly linked to the reserves or budget work from earlier lessons.The walkthrough was explicitly connected to protecting the reserves and budget decisions established earlier in the module.4
Actionability and ownership (0–5)No owners or dates were assigned to any gap.Owners were named for most gaps but dates were missing or vague.Every gap has a specific named owner and a firm target date or adoption status.4
Worked sample total18 / 20
  • Completeness: Harvest Point documented the full process from counting through reconciliation with a fix for every identified gap.
  • Use of evidence: Grace T. and the treasurer each described their own steps directly, giving an accurate current-state picture.
  • Alignment to the module purpose: The team connected the approval threshold directly to protecting the reserves policy adopted in lesson three, though the link was not drawn for every gap.
  • Actionability and ownership: Two of three gaps have firm dates and one was adopted immediately, though the reconciliation review's start date remains slightly loose.

Lesson-exercise scores (20 points each) demonstrate learning and artifact quality. They do not automatically overwrite the official Nine M module assessment, which remains a separate 100-point rating of five module dimensions.

Submit evidence

What must be submitted for this lesson to count as complete.

Submit

  • • Completed Internal Controls Walkthrough and Remediation Register
  • • Assembled final Church Financial Health and Stewardship Plan

Attach this evidence

  • Every process step documented by the person who performs it
  • Every gap assigned a named owner and target date or adoption status

File upload is not implemented in this prototype. Ticking a box records that the church can produce the document; it does not store a file.

Contribute to official outcome

How this lesson builds the Church Financial Health and Stewardship Plan.

Artifact produced: Internal Controls Walkthrough and Remediation Register

Completes the control-recommendations and financial-risks sections and supplies the majority of line items for the module's 90-day action plan.

Open the module deliverable assembly

Participant reflection and notes

What is one control gap in our current process that, once named, seems obvious in hindsight, and why did it take this long to see it?