Grant Victor Cares

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
813308383
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2016–2025
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2025
Location
Kaysville, UT, USA
Phone
8015731140
Rating
93
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Community Foundations

Reported finances

Revenue
$66,646
Expenses
$87,293
Assets
$100,982
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JEFFREY MATTHEWS (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • BURTON MATTHEWS (DIRECTOR)
  • SPENCER MATTHEWS (DIRECTOR)
  • JEFFREY MATTHEWS (PRESIDENT)

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 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The organization intends to improve education in underprivileged schools and communities in africa. Specifically, the organization plans on constructing school buildings and related support structures in africa to create effective learning environments and create and present classroom educational experiences in africa to inspire learning.

What it reported doing in 2025

2 toilet blocks established- kavunzoni, kenya, africa

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filed totals do not add up and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 92
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Sustainability: 37
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 77.9%; rating input score 78

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -31%; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.16; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 7.3% per year; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2.4% per year; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 18.9% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 77.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 3 filed program accomplishments · $68K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 8 of 9 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2016 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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: Part III transfer expenses within program total did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 17/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 51/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.