James Project International

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
900666565
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2012, Form 990-N 2013
Location
Ozark, MO, USA
Phone
4177719392
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Family Services

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,653,205
Expenses
$1,323,523
Assets
$1,625,366
Liabilities
$3,240

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CAROLINE OHMES (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • TIFFANY APPLEGATE (DIRECTOR): $125,795 total reported compensation
  • BRYON APPLEGATE (DIRECTOR): $76,076 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The mission of james project international is to build and mobilize a network of people that actively improves the lives of abandoned, abused, and trafficked women and children through jpi's ministry partners.

What it reported doing in 2024

James project international provided food, shelter, trauma-couseling, and judicial representation for 167 children that have been abandoned, neglected, abused and/or trafficked. Through these services, these children found healing and rediscovered hope for their futures. *874 counseling sessions *292,000 meals served *41,610 safe nights of sleep. James project international provided education to 170 children, ranging from early education through university. *6 high school students *5 university students *28 trade school students james project international provided family reunificaiton services to 77 families, including counseling, supervision, parenting school, and meeting physical needs (medical, food, etc.). *95 family home visits *213 children served

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 92% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 70% of its reported program spending out as 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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 77
  • Transparency & Controls: 72
  • Accountability: 62
  • Sustainability: 62
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 72.3%; rating input score 72
  • Program expense ratio: 89.5%; rating input score 89
  • Fundraising efficiency: $22.73 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 62; 62nd 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: 0 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Fail
    • 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; 76th 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; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 43
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: 19.9%; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.23; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 15.3%; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 16% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 19.2% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 28.3% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 72.3% of revenue deployed · 89.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 8 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $126K · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 29 of 30 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2014 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

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

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 8 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 6 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 49/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 22/100.