ICM - International Cooperating Ministries
Legal name: The Rosser Foundation Dba International Cooperating Ministries
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 546338714
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2025
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025
- Location
- Newport News, VA, US
- Phone
- 757-827-6704
- Rating
- 72
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Private Independent Foundations
- Affiliation
- Christianity
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $33,268,880
- Expenses
- $23,300,119
- Assets
- $23,209,227
- Liabilities
- $2,736,034
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
32 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Janice Allen (CEO, President, EC Chair)
- Andrew Scott (International Programs Vide President)
Highest reported compensation
- Janice Allen (CEO, President, EC Chair): $185,950 total reported compensation
- Sean Mitchell (Chief Advacement Officer): $165,988 total reported compensation
- Janice H Stringer (COO): $141,223 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Building churches by partnering with indigenous ministries to help put a healthy church within walking distance of everyone in the world. Urgency of Mission We focus on our mission and work energetically to advance God’s Kingdom in the world. We focus on our mission and work energetically to advance God’s Kingdom in the world. Stan’s professional experience includes over 35 years in ministry operations, public accounting, government accounting, and international missions. Stan provides strategic leadership of the firm’s professional advisory and consulting services. Andy S. Chief Programs Officer.
What it reported doing in 2025
Production, translation, and copying of program and notes for study of theBible and broadcasting those programs throughout the world.
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 72% of its reported program spending out as grants.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - A large share of total spending goes to programs and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 61
- Transparency & Controls: 64
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 63
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 55.9%; rating input score 56
- Program expense ratio: 79.4%; rating input score 79
- Fundraising efficiency: $9.85 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
- Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
- Requires narrative reports: Limited
- Conducts field audits: Limited
- May suspend future funding: Limited
- Requires financial reports: Limited
- Conducts site visits: Limited
- Requires grant agreements: Pass
- May require repayment: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 99.9%; rating input score 100; 49th 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: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
- 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: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 30%; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.12; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 4.9%; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 4.5% per year; rating input score 100; 36th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 7.4% per year; rating input score 100; 59th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 10.5% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 1 programs and campaigns described on the official site
- Where the money goes: 55.9% of revenue deployed · 79.4% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 22 of 22 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $18.5M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $186K · 32 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 3 contractors listed · $1.1M reported
- Consistency: 39 of 40 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 16 filing years from 2010 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 19 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 8 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.
- Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.
Key Signals
Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 56/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 32/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 29/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 59/100.