Ashas Refuge

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
452620705
IRS 990 coverage
2021–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2020, Form 990-N 2015
Location
Memphis, TN, USA
Phone
9012923101
Rating
79
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Human Service Organizations
Affiliation
Christianity

Reported finances

Revenue
$372,375
Expenses
$322,583
Assets
$103,009
Liabilities
$12,297

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

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Jamie K Jones (Founder and Board President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Jamie K Jones (Founder and Board President): $46,500 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Inspired by the love of Jesus, Ashas Refuge restores hope, dignity, and confidence by providing trauma-informed immigration support, education, crisis-response services, and job-skills training through apprenticeship opportunities for displaced individuals and families.

What it reported doing in 2025

General Refugee / Asylee Assistance, Family Services and Immigration Support: Ashas Refuge provided trauma-informed family services and immigration navigation to displaced individuals and families. Services included cultural orientation; assistance with class enrollment and referrals to English/ESL programs; connections to one-on-one tutors and mentors; conversational English groups; transportation to essential appointments; interpretation assistance; guidance navigating medical, educational, and community systems; assistance with rental housing navigation; and job search support, including employment research, job applications, coaching, and onboarding assistance. Through partnerships with several Memphis-area immigration law firms, the organization provided immigration navigation and case support related to family reunification, asylum, lawful permanent residency, and naturalization. In 2025, the organization served approximately 1,200 individuals.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 68% for direct work, and 32% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 77
  • Transparency & Controls: 89
  • Accountability: 78
  • Sustainability: 39
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 74.7%; rating input score 75
  • Program expense ratio: 86%; rating input score 86
  • Fundraising efficiency: $21.78 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 83.3%; rating input score 83; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 98.4%; rating input score 98; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 80%; rating input score 80; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • 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: 13.4%; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.32; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.12; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 14.4%; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 10.3% per year; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 13.6% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -4.4% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 74.7% of revenue deployed · 86% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 5 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $277K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $46K · 7 people listed
  • Consistency: 26 of 28 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2021 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 57/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 17/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 21/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 23/100.