Jesus Frees Ministries

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
205425511
IRS 990 coverage
2025–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2024
Location
Bend, OR, USA
Phone
5413855034
Rating
60
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
International Development
Affiliation
Christianity

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$272,477
Expenses
$268,688
Assets
$32,898
Liabilities
$-655

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • Michael Freese (Executive Dir.): $30,006 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To team people and resources to reach the world with the freeing power of Jesus Christ

What it reported doing in 2025

JFM Evangelism: Church Support, Training, Bible School, Outreach, and Pastors' Support Assistance to JFM ChurchesIn 2025, Jesus frees Ministries witnessed God powerfully at work, transforming lives and communities in remarkable ways. 3 new churches were started in Malanga, Wamba, and Meru, Kenya. JFM now has 16 churches serving the people of Kenya and bringing the hope of the Gospel to new areas.The JFM missionaries taught regulary in the JFM church branches, schools, and surrounding villages. The JFM pastors organized mission outreaches and evangelism in their respective villages. Regular evangelism outreaches were sent to the remote village of Naiborkeju, a prospective JFM church plant. Special JFM outreaches were organized by the Luanda, Liasho, Katunga, Oloruko, Kisima, and Lokusero-B churches. 181 people received Jesus Christ as their personal Savior, and 47 believers were baptized. To further equip God's people, 78 Bibles, provided by the Voice of the Martyrs organization, were distributed. We rejoice that JFM sent three JFM pastors to Bible school to invest in biblically grounded leadership. Monthly support was given to our 20 struggling JFM Pastors, who continually sacrifce for the sake of the Gospel. This support helped them better serve their congregations and families. After 3 years and several trips to the Capital, the Kenyan goverment approved JFM to perform marriages in Kenya. JFM paid the fees, and the government approved two JFM-ordained ministers as Kenyan "Marriage Officers, and JFM officiated its first wedding.Mission Teams: Steve and Marissa Barkemeyer served JFM in Kenya for 4 month. They taught weekly Sunday school lessons and morning devotions with the work crew. They made improvements at the JFM Headquarters by providing general assistance with daily work.2025 Spiritual Statistics 181 Kenyans responded to the Gospel 47 believers were baptized 3 new churches were started in Malanga, Wamba, and Meru, Kenya 78 Bibles in Kenyan languages were given during this reporting period 5 Audio Bibles in Kenyan languages were given during this reporting period 825 Believers were taught the Bible and discipled in JFM Churches and Mission Center.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 92% 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. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 78
  • Transparency & Controls: 81
  • Accountability: 0
  • Sustainability: 24
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 86.9%; rating input score 87
  • Program expense ratio: 88.1%; rating input score 88
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90%; rating input score 90; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 0 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Fail
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 1.4%; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.12; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 11.2%; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 10.7% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 18.3% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 86.9% of revenue deployed · 88.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 8 board members independent · 0 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 17 filed program accomplishments · $237K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $30K · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 18 of 19 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 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 — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 7 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 39/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 8/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 26/100.