Evangelical Christian Publishers Association Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
952970829
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Chandler, AZ, USA
Phone
4809663998
Rating
38
Verdict
REVIEW
Rating confidence
Moderate
Affiliation
Christianity

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,115,913
Expenses
$1,088,450
Assets
$586,109
Liabilities
$286,524

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

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JEFFREY CROSBY (PRES/CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • JEFFREY CROSBY (PRES/CEO): $187,987 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Evangelical christian publishers association is an international not-for- profit trade organization serving its industry by providing an opportunity for publishers of evangelical christian literature to exchange experience and opinions through discussion, study and publications; to promote the arts and sciences of publication; to develop and encourage high standards of service and conduct of publishers; to promote the common business interest of publishers through periodic meetings and seminars; to exchange mutually beneficial ideas and information; to promote professional excellence through training, research, sharing of strategy and initiating programs for the solving of common problems of publishers through the pooling of ideas; to exalt the name of the lord jesus christ and to proclaim the gospel so that the people may come to know him as savior and lord and make his word known; to promote christian education by encouraging the study, learning and reading of christian literature in

What it reported doing in 2024

Programs and events

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 99% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
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

REVIEW - Most voting board members are independent and revenue has grown recently. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 46
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 32
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Grant itemization coverage: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 2.5%; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.54; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.49; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 17.3%; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -18.1% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.5% per year; rating input score 100; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7.5% per year; rating input score 100; 49th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $188K · 14 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 14 of 15 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes foreign activity and executive pay
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2014 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.
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 43/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 25/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 16/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 19/100.