Kasiisi Project Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
542195079
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2010
Location
Grand Ledge, MI, USA
Phone
5743404090
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Fund Raising and/or Fund Distribution

Reported finances

Revenue
$784,948
Expenses
$619,581
Assets
$760,498
Liabilities
$39,871

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • SONYA KAHLENBER (FORMER EXEC): $92,084 total reported compensation
  • MARCY DOOZAN (EXECUTIVE DI): $33,333 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To conserve african forests through programs for african children and their communities that provide education and healthcare and care for the environment.

What it reported doing in 2025

Provide funds to the kibale forest school's program (kfsp), formerly afrokaps. Kfsp is a ugandan company limited by guarantee and a registered non-governmental organization. Richard wrangham and elizabeth ross are directors for both kasiisi project and kfsp. Kfsp provides funding to assist in the operation and maintenance of more than 16 ugandan government funded primary schools located within 5 kilometers of the boundary of kibale national park, uganda. It provides healthcare, education and conservation outreach to cover 8,000 children and their families and communities.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 98% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 93% of its reported program spending out as 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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 67
  • Transparency & Controls: 77
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 56
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 64.4%; rating input score 64
  • Program expense ratio: 80.6%; rating input score 81
  • Fundraising efficiency: $11.22 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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; 78th 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 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 21.1%; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.23; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.05; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 20.2%; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 3.8% per year; rating input score 100; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8.2% per year; rating input score 100; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 14.6% per year; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 64.4% of revenue deployed · 80.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $499K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $92K · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 25 of 25 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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: 7 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 39/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 49/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 16/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 43/100.