African Agricultural Technology Foundation
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 980459537
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Kenya, Nairobi, KE
- Phone
- 6508336660
- Rating
- 72
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- International Agricultural Development
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $16,406,182
- Expenses
- $18,121,869
- Assets
- $25,599,543
- Liabilities
- $16,255,191
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
20 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Canisius Kanangire (Executive Director)
Highest reported compensation
- Canisius Kanangire (Executive Director): $329,762 total reported compensation
- Emmanuel Okogbenin (Director Programme Development and Commercialization): $310,650 total reported compensation
- Sofia Tesfazion (Director Resource Mobilization): $267,499 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Aatf was created to alleviate several problems that affect agricultural development in africa including:
What it reported doing in 2024
Rwanda Agricultural Biotechnology Program - CMP (GPP) -Assist the government of Rwanda in developing blight-resistant potatoes, disease resistant cassava, and insect-resistant maize to enhance agricultural productivity and improve food security.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 80% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 59% for direct work, and 41% for 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 expenses are high relative to revenue.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 72
- Transparency & Controls: 75
- Accountability: 91
- Sustainability: 24
- Growth: 20
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 83.7%; rating input score 84
- Program expense ratio: 75.2%; rating input score 75
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 94.1%; rating input score 94; 20th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Pass
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
- Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
- Requires narrative reports: Fail
- Conducts field audits: Pass
- May suspend future funding: Fail
- Requires financial reports: Pass
- Conducts site visits: Fail
- Requires grant agreements: Fail
- May require repayment: Fail
- Grant itemization coverage: 99.9%; rating input score 100; 39th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 24th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
- 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: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -10.5%; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.41; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.63; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 9%; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -5.4% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -1.3% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 8.8% per year; rating input score 100; 59th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 83.7% of revenue deployed · 75.2% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 11 of 12 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 13 filed program accomplishments · $13.6M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $330K · 20 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 4 contractors listed · $2.7M reported
- Consistency: 30 of 30 current checks pass
- Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, executive pay, and related organizations
- Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 13 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.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 5 of 8 not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 10/100.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Form 990 shared with the board not reported.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 49/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 21/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 24/100.