Healing Kadi Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
272885617
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Omaha, NE, USA
Phone
9513157070
Rating
67
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Health Support Services
Affiliation
Christianity

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$713,199
Expenses
$343,675
Assets
$800,007
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Nathalie Hathaway (Executive Director)
  • Joseph Dumba (President)
  • Debbie Tomek (Vice-President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Nathalie Hathaway (Executive Director): $20,000 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

HKF is a Christian faith-centered organization working with South Sudanese to provide sustainable high-quality healthcare, education for healthcare providers, and psychological and spiritual counseling. The mission is accomplished by our doctors and nurses providing medicine and using their skills in a medical clinic. We also provide job skills training by supplementing the staff's educational tuition and fees to increase knowledge for the local medical workforce.

What it reported doing in 2024

Mission Trip and Orphanages: Each year doctors, nurses, and medical staff from the United States travel to Uganda and South Sudan to assist and provide training to our HKF staff in those countries. The mission trip was made early in the year where they provided valuable help, training, and assistance in working with patients during the two weeks they were present in the two countries. The mission group also visited several orphanages and a school donating $6,000 for the care of children as well as giving medicine and encouragement to children and staff and $7,000 to help with school operation needs.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 61% for direct work, and 39% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 58
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 79
  • Sustainability: 81
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 41.3%; rating input score 41
  • Program expense ratio: 85.7%; rating input score 86
  • Fundraising efficiency: $18.8 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 85.7%; rating input score 86; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 51.8%; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.33; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5.8%; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -14.2% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2.7% per year; rating input score 100; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 33.4% per year; rating input score 100; 92nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 41.3% of revenue deployed · 85.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 14 of 14 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $295K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $20K · 14 people listed
  • Consistency: 37 of 39 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • 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
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 41/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 7 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 57/100.
  • 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.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 51/100.