Jonathan's House International

Legal name: Jonathans House International

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
474057232
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2025
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2020
Location
Marshalltown, IA, USA
Phone
641-485-2829
Rating
79
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Religion Related N.E.C.
Affiliation
Religious (unspecified)

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$583,501
Expenses
$547,809
Assets
$642,524
Liabilities
$-953

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ROGER HATCH (President)

People named in this filing

  • LAURA CURLEY (Director)
  • CONNIE GERMAN (Secretary)
  • ROGER HATCH (President)

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

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

Overview

Mission

We care for orphans. This has always been our primary goal. In 2000, our founder Roger heard a sermon talking about Jonathan and David. Jonathan and David were best friends. Jonathan’s dad was King Saul. After King Saul died, David became king. One day David asked if there was anyone left from Jonathan’s family. His advisors told him about Jonathan’s son Mephibosheth who was a cripple. David asked them to bring him to the king’s palace. Mephibosheth was afraid that David was going to kill him since he was part of the family of the previous king. But David told him that he wanted him to come and eat at his table as one of his own sons for the rest of his life. When Roger heard that, he said i.

What it reported doing in 2025

Provided support through grants to 2 local and international organizations for the sake of meeting physical and spiritual needs to some of the most vulnerable communities Sierra Leone. Also constructed and supported various schools, agriculture projects, churches, and orphanages in these same areas.

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 69% 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 the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 94
  • Transparency & Controls: 67
  • Accountability: 88
  • Sustainability: 46
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 94.7%; rating input score 95
  • Fundraising efficiency: $30.27 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: 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: 50%; rating input score 50; 33rd 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: 5 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 71
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • 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: 6.1%; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.17; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -2.5% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -1.3% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6.8% per year; rating input score 100; 43rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: Mission, programs, and operating context captured from the official website.
  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 94.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $519K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 25 of 25 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2015 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 7 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 50/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 48/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 48/100.