Junk For Joy
Legal name: Junk for Joy Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 851751785
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2022–2025
- Official website data refreshed
- Jul 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025, Form 990-N 2020
- Location
- Dallas, TX, US
- Phone
- 877-586-5367
- Rating
- 73
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Cultural, Ethnic Awareness
- Affiliation
- Judaism
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $90,519
- Expenses
- $208,150
- Assets
- $171,565
- Liabilities
- $90
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
4 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- ELIYOHU MINTZ (PRESIDENT)
Highest reported compensation
- ELIYOHU MINTZ (PRESIDENT): $156,055 total reported compensation
- FAYGE GEWIRTZ (SECRETARY): $29,955 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Junk for Joy makes car donation easy, turning unwanted vehicles into support for children in need.
What it reported doing in 2025
Born in Texas in 2020, junk for joy is on a mission to turn unused cars into funds for a good cause. We make it easy for donors to join us with quick, free and convenient pickup of vehicles in all conditions. We are hyper focused on making the most we can out of each donation.our car donation program is new but the the charity programs it funds have been making an impact for decades. Junk for joy proudly supports oorah, a national organization that has been supporting the jewish community with family and youth outreach programs since the 1970s. Providing everything from financial assistance to personal mentorship, our year-round programs are a lifeline to children and families across the country.
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 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 88
- Transparency & Controls: 71
- Accountability: 62
- Sustainability: 19
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
- Program expense ratio: 84.1%; rating input score 84
- Fundraising efficiency: $6.09 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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; 81st percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 66.7%; rating input score 67; 24th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 5 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 56
- 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: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -130%; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.82; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 21.9%; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 120% per year; rating input score 100; 98th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -1.4% per year; rating input score 0; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 1% per year; rating input score 100; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 1 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 5 operating locations identified
- Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 84.1% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 2 of 3 board members independent · 5 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $175K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $156K · 4 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 18 of 18 current checks pass
- Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 4 filing years from 2022 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
- Related organizations: 3 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.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 43/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 15/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 25/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 9/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 29/100.