John Mark Co

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
364021430
IRS 990 coverage
2017–2018
Forms available
Form 990 2018
Location
Crete, IL, USA
Phone
7085323444
Rating
67
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Religion Related N.E.C.
Affiliation
Religious (unspecified)

Reported finances

Revenue
$8,961,288
Expenses
$2,897,515
Assets
$12,016,276
Liabilities
$191,000

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2018. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Loren Veldhuizen (President)
  • Ken Erffmeyer (Vice President)
  • James Bakke (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • James Bakke (Executive Director): $205,387 total reported compensation
  • David Schutt (Director of Finance): $150,924 total reported compensation
  • Cindi Riemersma (Treasurer): $82,193 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2018. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

John Mark Co. receives, accumulates, manages, invests, and disburses all forms of property gift assets to Barnabas Foundation, to further its charitable activities.

What it reported doing in 2018

John Mark Co. receives, accumulates, manages, invests, and disburses all forms of property gift assets to Barnabas Foundation, to further its charitable mission in the support of the cause of Jesus Christ. John Mark Co. and Barnabas Foundation seek to support those groups, societies, organizations, and institutions which minister in Jesus' name to man's spiritual, physical, emotional and intellectual capacities.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 93% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 98% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 50
  • Transparency & Controls: 72
  • Accountability: 91
  • Sustainability: 88
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 30.9%; rating input score 31
  • Program expense ratio: 98.6%; rating input score 99
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 71st 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 67.7%; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.15; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 2.9%; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -121.9% per year; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 124.6% per year; rating input score 100; 100th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 52.9% per year; rating input score 100; 98th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 30.9% of revenue deployed · 98.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2.9M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $205K · 10 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 20 of 21 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2017 to 2018
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 5 filed related-organization links
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 31/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.