Africa Foundation (USA)

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
880461880
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Reno, NV, USA
Phone
7754124300
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
International Development

Reported finances

Revenue
$913,539
Expenses
$1,679,059
Assets
$313,763
Liabilities
$72,778

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • WENDY WOOD (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • JAN MOEHL (TRUSTEE/PRESIDENT)
  • MEGAN WOIDA (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • WENDY WOOD (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $123,386 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

See schedule o

What it reported doing in 2024

Education - af(USA) prioritizes the building and improvement of local schools, believing that rural communities can break the cycle of poverty through education. Funds totaling $392,907 were distributed to build classrooms, dormitories, kitchens, and other facility projects. An additional $62,078 was granted through the community leaders' education (clef) program. This program was established in 1996 by the africa foundation and is a bursary initiative supporting rural youth from countries including south africa, botswana, namibia, tanzania, zanzibar, and kenya. Its mission is to assist young leaders with demonstrated potential in accessing education and skills that would otherwise be out of reach, enabling them to increase their employability, give back to their communities and work toward the end of the cycle of poverty in rural africa. Recipients are not required to pay back their bursaries, but are expected to engage in community service and share their skills with others in their communities.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 98% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% 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. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 86
  • Transparency & Controls: 75
  • Accountability: 75
  • Sustainability: 12
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 77.3%; rating input score 77
  • Fundraising efficiency: $13.4 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 0 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Fail
    • 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 76th 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; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -83.8%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.19; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.23; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 7.3%; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 22.1% per year; rating input score 100; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 14.1% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 2.1% per year; rating input score 100; 26th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 77.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 4 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 6 filed program accomplishments · $1.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $123K · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 27 of 27 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2020 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: Foreign activity oversight: 8 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 47/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 1/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 9/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 29/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 46/100.