Le Pont International - a Bridge to Africa

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
853798917
IRS 990 coverage
2023–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Weatherfod, TX, USA
Phone
8056249125
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
International Relief
Affiliation
Christianity

Reported finances

Revenue
$770,769
Expenses
$609,915
Assets
$382,550
Liabilities
$10,433

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

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JOHN HOLT (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • REBEKAH ACKER (EXECUTIVE DI): $46,122 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Le pont international aims to transform lives and communities by equipping the church, empowering the community, and educating children.

What it reported doing in 2024

Le pont international equips churches and community leaders while maintaining oversight of water well projects throughout rural villages. For each well installation, a well management committee is formed in collaboration with local church leaders and village authorities. These committees are responsible for organizing and maintaining the wells, ensuring clean water is available to all people of the village regardless of race, religion, or social status. Le pont international provides monthly training and follow-up sessions to these leaders, helping sustain long-term access to safe water. In addition, churches are equipped and strengthened to serve as strategic centers of gospel transformation and community development. To support local pastors, le pont provides motorcycles, enabling them to more effectively reach and serve their communities. These motorcycles are vital tools for transportation, medical emergencies, community coordination, and church planting efforts across remote 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 84% 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. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 73
  • Transparency & Controls: 76
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 57
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 68.1%; rating input score 68
  • Program expense ratio: 86.1%; rating input score 86
  • Fundraising efficiency: $20.56 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Limited
    • Conducts field audits: Limited
    • May suspend future funding: Limited
    • Requires financial reports: Pass
    • Conducts site visits: Limited
    • Requires grant agreements: Limited
    • May require repayment: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 99.5%; rating input score 99; 49th 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: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: 20.9%; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.63; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 7.6%; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 30.7% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 36.4% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 57.3% per year; rating input score 100; 97th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 68.1% of revenue deployed · 86.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 4 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $525K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $46K · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 27 of 28 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2023 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 59/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 29/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 45/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 59/100.