Jam for Cam Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
832069797
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2018–2024
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2024
Location
Atlanta, GA, USA
Phone
4254490080
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Human Service Organizations

Reported finances

Revenue
$18,075
Expenses
$122,867
Assets
$85,985

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DYLAN MIKILITUS (President)
  • CARTER THOMPSON (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • COLIN BROOKS BEECHAM (Director)
  • MATTHEW THOMAS BROWN (Director)
  • BENNETT PORSON (Director)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

Jam for Cam Inc. is a nonprofit corporation organized and operated for charitable purposes, specifically to honor Cameron Fearon, a UGA student, who passed away in 2018 from metastatic melanoma. Jam for Cam puts on a music festival every fall to honor Cameron's life and bring together the Athens and UGA communities. The majority of donations received from the event are donated to Melanoma Research Foundation to further promote melanoma research and education, to Camp Carolina Nath Thompson Scholarship Fund to help other children attend Camp Carolina where Cameron made many of his best childhood memories, and to a charity that is more personal for the UGA and Athens community.

What it reported doing in 2024

$100,000 of prior year event's net proceeds were donated in February 2024 to Melanoma Research Foundation, North Carolina Community Foundation, and The Samuel L Asbury Foundation.

Operating model

Revenue model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent revenue detail to tell how this nonprofit funds its work.
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

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of total spending goes to programs and some filed totals do not add up.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 70
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 18
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 18.7%; rating input score 19

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -579.8%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.7; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 7.8% per year; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -1.9% per year; rating input score 0; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 13.5% per year; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 18.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $23K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 6 of 7 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2018 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 19/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part III transfer expenses within program total did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 2/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 37/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.