Fruit That Remains Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
453588997
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2015
Location
Maumelle, AR, USA
Phone
5016815784
Rating
71
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Counseling, Support Groups
Affiliation
Christianity

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$414,808
Expenses
$393,185
Assets
$521,775
Liabilities
$2,464

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • WILLIAM L HUNT (PRESIDENT/DI)

Highest reported compensation

  • WILLIAM L HUNT (PRESIDENT/DI): $56,506 total reported compensation
  • JENNIFER L HUNT (SEC/TREAS/DI): $55,000 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Fruit that remains exists to provide personal, one-on-one mentoring and nurturing of couples and families designed to build strong marriages and families in east africa.

What it reported doing in 2025

Fruit that remains provides marriage mentoring and shepherding for couples, leads small group marriage enrichment studies called "homebuilders- and provides pre-marital counseling to engaged couples. The organization also runs a retreat center for marriage and spiritual direction and facilitates marriage enrichment weekends for church groups as well as mentors 14 couples leading marriage ministries or who are ministering to other couples. During 2025, fruit that remains conducted numerous spiritual direction retreats for couples and individuals, mentored 12 couples in two small groups, continued development of a retreat center and facilitated the premarital counseling training for a large team at a large church. We also continued to provide shepherding for 12 couples experiencing trauma in their marriages.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 98% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 55% for direct work, and 45% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 65
  • Transparency & Controls: 77
  • Accountability: 72
  • Sustainability: 43
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 67.2%; rating input score 67
  • Program expense ratio: 70.2%; rating input score 70
  • Fundraising efficiency: $11.07 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 75%; rating input score 75; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 5.2%; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.33; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 28.4%; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 9.5% per year; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6.2% per year; rating input score 100; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 12.7% per year; rating input score 100; 70th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 67.2% of revenue deployed · 70.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 8 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $276K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $57K · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 26 of 26 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2012 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 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.

Key Signals

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

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 7 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 40/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 47/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 48/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 12/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 44/100.