Market Project Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
464190613
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2019
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
7036083446
Rating
67
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Economic Development

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$418,270
Expenses
$393,739
Assets
$224,740
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DOROTHY DOUGLAS TAFT (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • DOROTHY DOUGLAS TAFT (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $44,700 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 build sustainable businesses and create workplaces that are transformative and dignity-affirming for survivors of complex trauma. Survivors often struggle to find sustainable employment. We work with survivors to build thriving businesses that foster healing.

What it reported doing in 2025

Sustainable work we create transformative and dignity-affirming jobs in market-based businesses for survivors of trauma, exploitation, and trafficking. These jobs build skills and promote flourishing in community to advance the survivor's healing journey. We also provide job-related training in areas such as sales, production and employee rights. In 2025, we registered a new business in northern uganda and began startup, including market research, product development and identification of supply chains. This is a region that experienced high levels of trauma during the 20 years of conflict between the lra and ugandan authorities and today hosts an estimated one million refugees from south sudan and congo. The region also is experiencing high population growth, including youth desperate for jobs and to earn a living.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 54% for direct work, and 46% for grants.

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 a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 50
  • Transparency & Controls: 76
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 43
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 53.2%; rating input score 53
  • Program expense ratio: 56.5%; rating input score 57
  • Fundraising efficiency: $3.92 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 20th 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: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Pass
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 5.9%; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.57; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 11.4%; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 4.4% per year; rating input score 100; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 17.1% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 10.9% per year; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 53.2% of revenue deployed · 56.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $223K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $45K · 7 people listed
  • Consistency: 23 of 24 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2020 to 2025
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 53/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 57/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 6 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 17/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 49/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 27/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 26/100.