Project42
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 833125072
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2019–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Jul 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Saint Paul, MN, USA
- Phone
- 612-424-0891
- Rating
- 83
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Christianity
- Affiliation
- Christianity
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $4,026,552
- Expenses
- $3,660,706
- Assets
- $1,505,268
- Liabilities
- $2,002
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
5 people listed
Highest reported compensation
- JUSTIN MACK (CHAIR): $164,831 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The vision of Project42 is to help raise awareness and resources for the 42% of the world that has little or no access to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The Project42 Community is comprised of hundreds of like-minded churches, business leaders, and individuals. Our community is the backbone of our mission of advocating for the unreached. Together, we will work to engage a solution until every nation, language, and tribe has had an opportunity to hear the good news of Jesus Christ. To His lost children, we see you. To His chosen ones on the frontlines, we support you. To His church, we need you. Project42 is a nationally recognized 501(c)3 non-profit organization based in Minnesota.
What it reported doing in 2024
Project42 carefully evaluates and invests in strategic missionary partners who mobilize more missionaries to the unreached, translate scriptures into languages that have never had scriptures in their own language, plant churches where there are none, provide much needed business capital to start businesses among the unreached, cares for those in need and raise awareness about the challenges and realities of the unreached. Please note that all fundraising event expenses are underwritten and covered by a group of generous sponsors who share our vision and mission to provide access for the unreached.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 99% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 90% of its reported program spending out as grants.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
The verdict
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 85
- Transparency & Controls: 73
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 50
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 83.4%; rating input score 83
- Program expense ratio: 91.6%; rating input score 92
- Fundraising efficiency: $47.98 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 85.7%; rating input score 86; 1st percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 49.6%; rating input score 50; 15th 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: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Other executive compensation review process: Pass
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 9.1%; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.41; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 4.5%; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 42.2% per year; rating input score 100; 96th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 37.8% per year; rating input score 100; 96th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 33.2% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: Mission, programs, and operating context captured from the official website.
- Where the money goes: 83.4% of revenue deployed · 91.6% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $3.4M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $165K · 5 people listed
- Consistency: 26 of 28 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
- Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
- Filing history: 5 filing years from 2019 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 55 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 54 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.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 50/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 14/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grants require schedule f did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 57/100.