Project Transformation National

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
474329954
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Dallas, TX, USA
Phone
4695132595
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Management & Technical Assistance

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$4,724,167
Expenses
$1,862,852
Assets
$3,241,050
Liabilities
$61,529

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

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Casey Mellody (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • Casey Mellody (CEO): $121,335 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Project Transformations mission is to transform communities by engaging children, college-age young adults, and churches in purposeful relationships. We envision a world that is rooted in love, pursues the equity of all people, and amplifies Gods call on every life.

What it reported doing in 2024

PT National supported a network of seven affiliated chapters in Arkansas, Central Texas, North Texas, Oklahoma, South Rio Texas, Tennessee, and Washington, DC with network results as follows. CHILDREN 635 children and youth participated 60 of program days in PTs summer programs, resulting in 90 of children maintaining or improving their reading levels. 4,524 books were distributed to children for at-home libraries. YOUNG ADULTS 187 young adults served summer service terms, leading summer programming with children and discerning their vocation. 14 Community Directors were hired to lead spiritual programming and intentional community across the network. CHURCHES 31 churches hosted PTs summer camps with 118 partnering churches and organizations and 2,000 volunteers serving with PT.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 98% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 76% of its reported program spending out as 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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 59
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 76
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 36%; rating input score 36
  • Program expense ratio: 90.2%; rating input score 90
  • Fundraising efficiency: $45.16 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 60.6%; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.74; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 6.5%; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 12.8% per year; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 23.3% per year; rating input score 100; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 19.2% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 36% of revenue deployed · 90.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.7M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $121K · 13 people listed
  • Consistency: 28 of 29 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2015 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 8 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 7 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 36/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Form 990 shared with the board not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 57/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 44/100.