International Board of Jewish Missions

Legal name: International Board of Jewish Missions Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
580669998
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Chattanooga, TN, USA
Phone
(423) 876 8150
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Interfaith Coalitions
Affiliation
Judaism

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$4,222,268
Expenses
$3,989,855
Assets
$3,781,207
Liabilities
$517,358

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

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • REV ED FRAMPTON (DIRECTOR/PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • REV ED FRAMPTON (DIRECTOR/PRESIDENT): $127,418 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To bring the Jewish people in direct contact with the truth of the gospel, and to assist local churches in establishing and fulfilling New Testament Jewish evangelism. IBJM is a Baptist mission and is distinguished by historic Baptist doctrine. We assist local churches in establishing Baptist churches. IBJM does not assist in establishing messianic congregations, nor is it in agreement with modern Messianic Judaism. IBJM does not accept any belief or practice that teaches or implies that the New Testament Church is required to keep the Old Testament Mosaic Law for either salvation or sanctification. We believe that the entire law is fulfilled in Messiah, for both Jewish and Gentile believers. Therefore, IBJM does not approve the doctrines promoted in the Hebrew Roots or similar movements. Support the Ministry.

What it reported doing in 2024

Everlasting nation ministries - evangelical outreach that includes the everlasting nation museum, a magazine publication, radio program and ministry trips.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 91% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 65% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 79
  • Transparency & Controls: 74
  • Accountability: 80
  • Sustainability: 49
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 78.3%; rating input score 78
  • Program expense ratio: 82.4%; rating input score 82
  • Fundraising efficiency: $37.72 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 20th 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: Limited
    • Conducts field audits: Limited
    • May suspend future funding: Limited
    • Requires financial reports: Limited
    • Conducts site visits: Limited
    • Requires grant agreements: Limited
    • May require repayment: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 96.9%; rating input score 97; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 83.3%; rating input score 83; 16th 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: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 5.5%; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.95; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.14; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 3.2%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 2% per year; rating input score 100; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.1% per year; rating input score 100; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4.8% per year; rating input score 100; 34th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 2 programs and campaigns described on the official site
  • Where the money goes: 78.3% of revenue deployed · 82.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 6 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $3.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $127K · 6 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 4 contractors listed · $563K reported
  • Consistency: 35 of 36 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and grants
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2012 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.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 52/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 35/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 52/100.