For The Good

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
471979734
IRS 990 coverage
2021–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2020, Form 990-N 2017
Location
Glenwood Springs, CO, USA
Phone
5302203811
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
International Relief

Reported finances

Revenue
$248,091
Expenses
$312,851
Assets
$360,890
Liabilities
$40,932

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

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Kayce Anderson (Executive Director)

People named in this filing

  • Martha Cochran (Board Member)
  • Lisa Raleigh (Board Member)
  • Barbara Freeman (Board Member)

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

For the Good partners with communities in rural, disadvantaged regions of Kenya to keep girls in school so they can gain the agency to drive their own lives.

What it reported doing in 2025

For the Good works with communities in Africa to support girls access to education so they are empowered to drive their own lives. Given a secondary education, girls: earn higher incomes; have fewer, healthier children; and have a much better chance of creating better futures for themselves and their families. The benefits of girls education also ripple widely into their communities and strengthen economies at local and national scales. We believe in better access to education for all children, but the increased barriers girls face in their attempts to gain one are the reason we focus our work on keeping girls, especially, in school.

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 69% 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: 98
  • Transparency & Controls: 51
  • Accountability: 88
  • Sustainability: 28
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 94.2%; rating input score 94
  • Fundraising efficiency: $2,813.85 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 99; 99th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 15th 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: 5 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 71
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -26.1%; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.15; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.11; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 25% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 13.6% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 26.1% per year; rating input score 100; 88th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 94.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 4 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $295K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 21 of 22 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2021 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 9/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 45/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 21/100.