Caleb Corps Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
800492737
IRS 990 coverage
2022–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2015
Location
Gladstone, OR, USA
Phone
5034513743
Rating
69
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
International Relief
Affiliation
Christianity

Reported finances

Revenue
$450,852
Expenses
$395,126
Assets
$213,215
Liabilities
$3,024

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

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • John Anderson (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Jim Reynolds (Director): $70,000 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

We are a research and training organization for Seventh-day Adventist missionaries. Our purpose is to prepare Christians to meet the needs of their communities. By meeting people's needs, we hope to achieve our ultimate goal of reflecting God's love to the world.

What it reported doing in 2024

Ultimate Mission is conducting a year-long research project in rural Ethiopia to evaluate the prevalence and underlying causes of diarrhea, anemia, and malnutrition among women and children. Working through our trained Healthy Heart village health workers, the study is collecting baseline health data, assessing nutrition and sanitation practices, and monitoring improvements as families receive targeted health education and simple, sustainable interventions. The findings will provide reliable, community-level evidence to guide more effective health programs, strengthen maternal-child health efforts, and help local leaders reduce preventable illness. Ultimately, this project will equip communities with the knowledge and tools needed to improve long-term health, break cycles of disease, and raise the overall quality of life for vulnerable families.

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 49% for direct work, and 51% 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: 79
  • Transparency & Controls: 47
  • Accountability: 79
  • Sustainability: 45
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 72.9%; rating input score 73
  • Program expense ratio: 82.8%; rating input score 83
  • Fundraising efficiency: $345.26 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 94; 94th 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: 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: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 81.8%; rating input score 82; 22nd 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: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 12.4%; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.54; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 17.7%; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 14.4% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 21.6% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 24.8% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 72.9% of revenue deployed · 82.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 11 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $327K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $70K · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 23 of 25 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2022 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 26/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 21/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 43/100.