Amani Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
364806201
IRS 990 coverage
2017–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-N 2022
Location
State College, PA, USA
Phone
6315223217
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$105,400
Expenses
$87,376
Assets
$95,657
Liabilities
$30,000

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

1 person listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Katharine Thompson (Executive Director)

People named in this filing

  • Katharine Thompson (Executive 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. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The Amani Foundation is a US-based 501(c)(3) nonprofit that supports at-risk children and families in northern Tanzania through a family-based care model. The organization provides access to education, psychosocial support, and community-based livelihood programs that strengthen household stability and prevent family separation. Programs include school sponsorship, case management, and nutrition-focused initiatives such as small livestock and garden support.

What it reported doing in 2025

The organization supported children in approximately 30 families through direct education assistance, including payment of school fees, provision of uniforms and learning materials, and ongoing case management. Staff conducted regular follow-up with students and caregivers to support school attendance, academic progress, and wellbeing. This program focused on ensuring uninterrupted access to education for vulnerable children and reducing the risk of family separation due to financial hardship.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% 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 most voting board members are independent. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 79
  • Transparency & Controls: 47
  • Accountability: 94
  • Sustainability: 53
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 81.7%; rating input score 82
  • Program expense ratio: 98.5%; rating input score 99
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 81.8%; rating input score 82; 1st 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: 0%; rating input score 0; 20th 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: 6 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 86
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 17.1%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.09; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.31; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 4.1% per year; rating input score 100; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6.3% per year; rating input score 100; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 20.4% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 81.7% of revenue deployed · 98.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 6 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $86K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 1 people listed
  • Consistency: 40 of 42 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2017 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 43/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 12/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.