Freedom 4 24

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
264320885
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Lynchburg, VA, USA
Phone
4345824517
Rating
63
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
International Human Rights

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$588,973
Expenses
$596,672
Assets
$188,389
Liabilities
$328

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

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Joy Cover (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Joy Cover (President): $73,177 total reported compensation
  • Sal Ferlise (CFO): $22,075 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Freedom 4-24 seeks to prevent and end sexual exploitation and trafficking locally and globally. The organization raises awareness, provides prevention education, and expands the restoration work of its partners.

What it reported doing in 2025

In 2025 Freedom 4/24 significantly expanded the reach of its human trafficking prevention education programs, reaching a broad population of learners across various age groups. Over 43,000 students in middle schools, high schools, and at Randolph College were enrolled in prevention education during the year as part of its targeted curricula designed to equip young people with knowledge about risks, warning signs, and protective strategies against exploitation. Beyond student education, Freedom 4/24 continued to scale its community and professional training efforts, offering evidence-based content for parents, caregivers, school resource officers, healthcare providers (with continuing education credit), beauty and wellness professionals, and the general community. 4,361 individuals were educated through these various types of training and curriculum. Freedom 4/24 supported aftercare efforts through $71,075 in grants to partners and provided 91 cumulative hours servc

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 79% for direct work, and 21% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 54
  • Transparency & Controls: 64
  • Accountability: 78
  • Sustainability: 28
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 58.4%; rating input score 58
  • Program expense ratio: 57.6%; rating input score 58
  • Fundraising efficiency: $6.38 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 85.7%; rating input score 86; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Grant itemization coverage: 77.4%; rating input score 77; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 77.8%; rating input score 78; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -1.3%; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.32; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 16%; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 6.1% per year; rating input score 100; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 10% per year; rating input score 100; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 10.1% per year; rating input score 100; 55th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 58.4% of revenue deployed · 57.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 9 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $344K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $73K · 9 people listed
  • Consistency: 24 of 26 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 8 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 2 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 58/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 58/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 22/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 26/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 16/100.
  • 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: Officer compensation ratio scored 23/100.