Amish Mennonite Aid Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
540803181
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Oswego, KS, USA
Phone
6207952882
Rating
66
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Affiliation
Christianity

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,236,541
Expenses
$2,335,679
Assets
$2,581,223
Liabilities
$40,855

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • Ronald J Miller (SecretaryTreasurer): $61,200 total reported compensation
  • Jonas Beiler (Vice-Chairman): $14,000 total reported compensation
  • Galen Stutzman (At large): $5,600 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The purpose of AMA shall be to render material, moral, and spiritual aid, in the name of Christ, to destitute and needy people.

What it reported doing in 2025

Kenya Programs: AMA provided bishops and pastors for various churches in city and rural areas. National clergy and other national church leaders also assisted with the work. Mission personnel assist with weekly Bible studies, oversee the distribution of humanitarian aid, and oversee community visitation and social services. Teaching seminars, for youth and adults, on a variety of subjects are presented in strategic locations. Bible correspondence courses are also offered with an active enrollment of several thousand. Numerous religious reference books, including Bibles, were distributed at a subsidized price, to local pastors, teachers, and interested lay persons. Many free books were distruted to individuals.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 99% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 70% for direct work, and 30% for grants.

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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 92
  • Transparency & Controls: 76
  • Accountability: 16
  • Sustainability: 35
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 96%; rating input score 96
  • Program expense ratio: 89%; rating input score 89
  • Fundraising efficiency: $68.14 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 14th 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: Pass
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 97.9%; rating input score 98; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Limited
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -4.4%; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.11; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 3.8%; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -4.8% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -4.9% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 1.2% per year; rating input score 100; 14th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 96% of revenue deployed · 89% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 5 board members independent · 3 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 5 filed program accomplishments · $2.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $61K · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 30 of 32 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and grants
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 12 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 5 filed related-organization links
  • 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 — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 6 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 16/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 37/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.