Sozo Supporting Organization Fund

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
463233560
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-T 2024
Location
Prospect Heights, IL, USA
Phone
4042520100
Rating
71
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Community Foundations
Affiliation
Christianity

Reported finances

Revenue
$499,908
Expenses
$828,605
Assets
$327,169
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DAVID A DILLON (PRESIDENT/DIRECTOR)
  • MICHELE F DILLON (VICE PRESIDENT/DIRECTOR)
  • WILLIAM N SCHOLTENS (VICE PRESIDENT/DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • ROGER L SANDBERG SR (SECRETARY/DIRECTOR): $251,785 total reported compensation
  • KAREN J JONAS (TREASURER/DIRECTOR): $235,382 total reported compensation
  • KRISTEN M LEWIS (FORMER TREASURER/DIRECTOR): $220,291 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Empower organizations to help communities and individuals to grow in the depth of their knowledge of jesus christ and in their ability to co-labor with him to build his kingdom.

What it reported doing in 2025

Charitable grantmaking that empowers organizations and ultimately individuals to grow emotionally, physically, socially, culturally, and spiritually.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 98% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most filed governance safeguards are in place. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 89
  • Transparency & Controls: 58
  • Accountability: 77
  • Sustainability: 20
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 15th 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: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Fail
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 98.2%; rating input score 98; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 60%; rating input score 60; 20th 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: -65.8%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.39; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 11.5%; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 27.2% per year; rating input score 100; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -14.6% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -8.4% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 5 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $828K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $252K · 7 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 18 of 19 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2020 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 14 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 16 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.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 7 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 3/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 21/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 26/100.