Boaz Project Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
352093306
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Greenwood, IN, USA
Phone
3178897606
Rating
67
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
International Relief

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,573,381
Expenses
$1,444,327
Assets
$1,040,815
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • APRIL JURGENSEN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • JAMES JURGENSEN (MANAGING DIRECTOR): $76,133 total reported compensation
  • APRIL JURGENSEN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $60,994 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 boaz project provides education to westerners about the plight of orphans. We provide international humanitarian aid the boaz project provides monthly support as well as funding for special needs for the orphanages it supports. This covers things like food, supplies, money, clothing, tuition, shoes and even housing to help provide orphans

What it reported doing in 2025

The boaz project supports those offering hands-on care to orphans by providing financial assistance, encouragement, and ongoing training. Our trauma-informed courses help these house parents and volunteers understand the behaviors that typically result from trauma and give them tools to help children heal.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 69
  • Transparency & Controls: 52
  • Accountability: 82
  • Sustainability: 49
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 70.1%; rating input score 70
  • Program expense ratio: 76.4%; rating input score 76
  • Fundraising efficiency: $11.97 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 78.6%; rating input score 79; 0th 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: 55%; rating input score 55; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 56
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 8.2%; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.72; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 9.5%; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 12.2% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8.6% per year; rating input score 100; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 18.8% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 70.1% of revenue deployed · 76.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 5 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $1.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $76K · 13 people listed
  • Consistency: 25 of 29 current checks pass · 4 findings to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes foreign activity
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 8 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 9 not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 55/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 41/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 52/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 33/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Advertising column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Insurance column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 39/100.