African Missions Project Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
261917235
IRS 990 coverage
2023–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2022, Form 990-N 2021
Location
Drums, PA, USA
Phone
5705995526
Rating
65
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Human Service Organizations
Affiliation
Christianity

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$336,934
Expenses
$310,289
Assets
$143,547
Liabilities
$2,949

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

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • GUY SCATTON (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • GUY SCATTON (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $9,850 total reported compensation
  • WYCLIFFE KWALANDA AMAKOBE (ADMIN DIRETOR): $4,690 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Pastor seminars, feeding orphans, building churches, providing food to african HIV widows, african tabernackle, devolpment centers for kenyan orphans. Plant churches througout africa for needed congregations and preach the gospel. Provide children with no home a roof over there head, a bed to sleep, and 3 meals a day, along with medical care, life skills, and an education

What it reported doing in 2024

ORPHAN CHILDREN FEEDING PROGRAM In addition to each orphan child receiving two meals per day, they also learn reading, writing, arithmetic, and the love of our Lord Jesus Christ in English Objectives included : To initiate programs geared to empowering the children economically. To initiate programs geared to empowering the children spiritually. To initiate programs geared to developing the children into a healthy nation. To initiate programs geared to promoting mutually accepted attitudes and values among the centers children.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 96% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 75% for direct work, and 25% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 82
  • Transparency & Controls: 46
  • Accountability: 68
  • Sustainability: 42
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 81.8%; rating input score 82
  • Program expense ratio: 88.8%; rating input score 89
  • Fundraising efficiency: $27.25 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 0 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Fail
    • 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: 0%; rating input score 0; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 22
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 7.9%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.46; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.7%; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -18% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 22.6% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 24% per year; rating input score 100; 88th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 81.8% of revenue deployed · 88.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 2 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $276K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $10K · 9 people listed
  • Consistency: 21 of 22 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes foreign activity
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2023 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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: 8 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 23/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 56/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 33/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 40/100.