The Sending Project

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
271485904
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024, Form 990-N 2011
Location
Olathe, KS, USA
Phone
9138291230
Rating
61
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Christianity
Affiliation
Christianity

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$384,571
Expenses
$387,806
Assets
$38,203
Liabilities
$1,388

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ERIC ROCHESTER (PRESIDENT/EXEC DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • ERIC ROCHESTER (PRESIDENT/EXEC DIRECTOR): $83,217 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

This organization exists to unite christian churches in a common effort to eliminate global poverty, both physical and spiritual.

What it reported doing in 2024

The organization built missional awareness, community, and collaboration among a diversity of churches, church leaders, and other people within the overall citywide body of christ, through an alliance of churches, various communications systems, meetings, network gatherings, projects, and initiatives. By the end of 2024, the number of churches the organization had networked with since the inception of the organization was about 375. The organization also served as a mission sending agency for international and u.s. Missionaries, some of whom were connected with churches that are involved with the organization.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 98% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 99% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. The filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars and the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 72
  • Transparency & Controls: 54
  • Accountability: 65
  • Sustainability: 25
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 73.6%; rating input score 74
  • Program expense ratio: 73%; rating input score 73
  • Fundraising efficiency: $20.06 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • 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: 0%; rating input score 0; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 75%; rating input score 75; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -0.8%; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.1; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.04; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 21.5%; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -0.3% per year; rating input score 0; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 0.5% per year; rating input score 100; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -7.9% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 73.6% of revenue deployed · 73% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 4 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $283K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $83K · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 25 of 26 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2014 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 7 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 58/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 37/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 6/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 18/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 35/100.