3Rd Person Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
275427291
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2013
Location
Noblesville, IN, USA
Phone
3179223688
Rating
65
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
International Relief

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$396,765
Expenses
$552,256
Assets
$179,295
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Jonathan Brockman (Executive Director)

People named in this filing

  • Dan Kandel (Director)
  • Michael Bliss (Director)
  • Scott Gustafson (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 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

3rd Person Inc exists to alleviate poverty in the Arab world by empowering nationals to restore broken relationships and systems in their communities.

What it reported doing in 2024

3rd Person Inc provided aid and relief to over 350 refugees in Jordan, Lebanon, and Egypt. These efforts are designed to provide relief and aid in the short-term as employment and other income-producing opportunities are limited. In the long term, these efforts are geared towards development. 3rd Person is working with key national leaders to train, equip, and provide practical job skills that enable a person to find and acquire other income producing opportunities so that they can take care of themselves and their families. Our team in the Middle East regularly visits clients on a weekly or monthly basis, collecting information and bringing attention to other needs they have. In addition to providing the food, clothing, furniture, and other necessity items for clients and their families. 3rd Person provided care for more than 350 people in 2024, distributed thousands of dollars in food and household goods, and provided job training for 40 people. After initial assessments, the clients are invited to participate in ongoing job skills and counseling services provided by volunteer staff.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 97% 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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 69
  • Transparency & Controls: 76
  • Accountability: 43
  • Sustainability: 26
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 81.9%; rating input score 82
  • Program expense ratio: 58.8%; rating input score 59
  • Fundraising efficiency: $9.63 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Fail
    • Conducts site visits: Pass
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 42.9%; rating input score 43; 16th 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: -39.2%; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.32; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 7% per year; rating input score 100; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.1% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 10.2% per year; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 81.9% of revenue deployed · 58.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 7 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 6 filed program accomplishments · $325K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 7 people listed
  • Consistency: 43 of 44 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2020 to 2024
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 43/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 59/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 6 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 6 not reported.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 38/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 7/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 17/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.