Access to Medicines Initiative Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 992821046
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2024–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2024
- Location
- Tucson, AZ, USA
- Phone
- 8016739225
- Rating
- 54
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- International Development
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $127,000
- Expenses
- $78,906
- Assets
- $48,094
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
5 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Evan Christopher LaForge (PRESIDENT & DIRECTOR)
People named in this filing
- Evan Christopher LaForge (PRESIDENT & DIRECTOR)
- Miriana Maria Muntean (TREASURER & DIRECTOR)
- Supriya Bansal (DIRECTOR)
Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The Organization's Primary exempt purpose is to reduce unintended pregnancies and maternal deaths in Nigeria by improving access to contraceptives through supply-chain support, data systems, and government capacity building.
What it reported doing in 2024
In our first year, Access to Medicines Initiative (AMI) conducted a pilot intervention across 137 primary and secondary public health facilities in Northern Nigeria (in Katsina State and Sokoto State) from September 2024 continuing into 2025. We sought to 1) diagnose supply-chain bottlenecks in contraceptive commodity availability, 2) test how much uptake could increase when supply constraints were removed, and 3) refine a scalable model for state-level rollout. We divided the participating facilities into 3 groups, and each group was assigned a reporting tool to be used to report the consumption and availability of family planning commodities in their facility. The goal was to assess which is most accurate in reporting the stock of commodities available in facilities at any given time. We trained one health worker from each participating facility on how to fill in this survey, either via SMS or WhatsApp, as well as a new paper register we distributed to each facility. The new paper register was meant to capture the number of clients coming in for a family planning consultation, but leaving without taking up a method, as well as the reason for this. Previously, this data was never captured, and we wanted to get a sense of how many women left facilities empty handed due to stockouts. We provided small monthly data stipends to each participating health worker, as well as ongoing support. To measure the impact of these supply chain issues, we provided additional contraceptives and auxiliary commodities such as examination and surgical gloves, syringes, disinfectant and plasters to some of the facilities in each state. By measuring the change in consumption due to this additional stock compared to previous periods and to the facilities not receiving additional commodities, we aimed to gain a better understanding of how stockouts impact contraceptive consumption. After collecting and analyzing facility consumption data, we found that facilities receiving additional contraceptives showed large increases in use compared to baseline levels, while control facilities showed little or no change. In treatment facilities, consumption of oral contraceptives increased by approximately 70 percent, contraceptive injections by 30 percent, condoms by 240 percent, and implants by 90 percent. Based on these results, we estimate the pilot generated more than 1,100 additional Couple Years of Protection, representing the equivalent of providing one year of contraceptive protection to more than 1,100 women. Our paper registers contained data from almost 11,000 visits, showing that almost 80% of these women who came in for a family planning consultation but left empty handed did so because of lack of commodities.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% 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
MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and revenue comfortably covers expenses. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 22
- Transparency & Controls: 100
- Sustainability: 63
- Growth: NotEnoughData
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 17.8%; rating input score 18
- Program expense ratio: 28.6%; rating input score 29
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 37.9%; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.61; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 50.7%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: Limited
- Asset growth: Limited
Details
- Where the money goes: 17.8% of revenue deployed · 28.6% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $23K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
- Consistency: 9 of 9 current checks pass
- Schedules: 3 filed schedules
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
- 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 18/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 29/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 43/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 4/100.