Isaac

Legal name: Interfaith Strategy for Advocacy and Action in the Community

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
202027747
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2019
Location
Kalamazoo, MI, US
Phone
269-341-4213
Rating
81
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Interfaith Coalitions
Affiliation
Interfaith

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$896,525
Expenses
$1,099,822
Assets
$647,228
Liabilities
$43,212

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

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ELDER DOUG KING (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • CHARLAE M DAVIS (EXECUTIVE DI): $90,000 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

As congregations and organizations, we commit ourselves to the pursuit of a just community—seeking to build a world where hope triumphs over fear, God’s abundance meets the needs of all, and we live in sacred and beloved community. Be a part of our work to “do justice” (Micah 6:8). Your gift helps us **build the Beloved Community by increasing support for policies and practices that create equity** in Kalamazoo County and across Michigan. DONATE NOW. ISAAC is an interfaith organizing network of congregations and strategic partners working together to build a more just community. Local ChapterNational Coalition for Common Ground / Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense Local Chapter.

What it reported doing in 2024

Task forces with a focus on the most pressing issues of injustice in kalamazoo county.

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 74% for direct work, and 26% for grants.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 94
  • Transparency & Controls: 67
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 22
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 89.2%; rating input score 89
  • Fundraising efficiency: $56.44 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 8.1%; rating input score 8; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -22.7%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.59; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.07; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 8.2%; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 24.9% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 28% per year; rating input score 100; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 34.3% per year; rating input score 100; 93rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 8 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 89.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $981K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $90K · 9 people listed
  • Consistency: 27 of 28 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2020 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 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: Grant itemization coverage scored 8/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 8/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 27/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 43/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 48/100.