T.D. Jakes Foundation
Legal name: Td Jakes Foundation
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 844667327
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2020–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Dallas, Texas, US
- Phone
- 2148786763
- Rating
- 76
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Job Training
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $18,214,428
- Expenses
- $15,321,491
- Assets
- $4,233,931
- Liabilities
- $654,973
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
12 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- KELLEY CORNISH (PRESIDENT & CEO)
- MARCEDES FULLER (DEPUTY ASSISTANT TO PRESIDENT)
Highest reported compensation
- KELLEY CORNISH (PRESIDENT & CEO): $406,119 total reported compensation
- BRENT WILSON (CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER): $245,635 total reported compensation
- MARC ALEXANDER (CHIEF STRATEGY OFFICER): $192,724 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Empowering communities and transforming lives through financial inclusion, education access & workforce readiness, and community transformation & well-being.
What it reported doing in 2024
Pathway to opportunity serves as the umbrella for the t.d. Jakes foundation's initiatives aimed at empowering individuals and communities through equitable access to education, workforce development, and economic opportunity. This program invests in high-quality education and job training designed to prepare people for the future economy, while also cultivating a resilient and skilled workforce. We champion innovative solutions that promote economic mobility and wealth-building such as affordable housing, financial literacy, entrepreneurship, and the strengthening of local community assets. Pathway to opportunity also supports collaborative, cross-sector strategies to improve community health, including expanded access to healthcare, the creation of sustainable living environments, and the development of strong, supportive social networks.
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 71% 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. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 67
- Transparency & Controls: 79
- Accountability: 91
- Sustainability: 49
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 65%; rating input score 65
- Program expense ratio: 77.2%; rating input score 77
- Fundraising efficiency: $12.6 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 17th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Pass
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 93%; rating input score 93; 22nd 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; 66th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: Pass
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 15.9%; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.28; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.15; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 9.2%; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 63.2% per year; rating input score 100; 99th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 61.8% per year; rating input score 100; 99th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 46.2% per year; rating input score 100; 98th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 7 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 2 operating locations identified
- Where the money goes: 65% of revenue deployed · 77.2% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 5 filed program accomplishments · $11.8M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $406K · 12 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $109K reported
- Consistency: 31 of 32 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 5 filing years from 2020 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 17 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 10 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: Fundraising efficiency scored 45/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 7/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 24/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.