Kindle Project

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
923175690
IRS 990 coverage
2024–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Santa Fe, NM, USA
Phone
5059837463
Rating
62
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Private Independent Foundations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$5,746,806
Expenses
$574,424
Assets
$5,195,959
Liabilities
$11,997

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

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • SADAF CAMERON (EXECUTIVE DI): $132,128 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Kindle projects purpose is to facilitate the flow of philanthropic capital to fund social, cultural, and environmental causes. By innovating creative ideas for moving money, educating partners, and elevating collaborative giving practices, kindle project serves as a bridge to connect inspired donors to leading-edge projects and people.

What it reported doing in 2024

Kindle project (kp) facilitates philanthropic capital to fund social, cultural, and environmental causes through grantmaking, facilitation and education, and advising. Community-informed grantmaking kp supports equitable redistribution of resources through community- informed grantmaking practices. Kp takes a multi-pronged approach to achieving these goals. In 2024, kp built and delivered programming to support community? Informed grantmaking through working with donors, assembling peer-learning cohorts, hosting online and in-person retreats, and creating curriculum and educational material, program relevant research, and storytelling opportunities. Kp worked with donors interested in supporting community-informed grantmaking through holding information sessions and providing relevant educational materials. Building on this engagement, kp designed, assembled, hosted, and facilitated multiple peer? Learning cohorts over the course of the year. Peer learning cohorts comprised a mix of urban and rural community members and were selected by criteria developed to accomplish the goals of each learning community. Kp hosted virtual sessions for each learning cohort on a regular basis and held in-person retreats once over the year for each. Kp created unique program curricula and educational materials for each cohort that addressed the goals, needs, and conversations to support community-informed grantmaking. Kp conducted research on place-based issues, organizations working in a variety of sectors, and gathered stats to support better informed decision-making. Kp built programming and platforms for each cohort to report their process, decisions, and outcomes. These collaborative efforts shaped recommendations for charitable organizations to be considered for grant support.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 98% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 39
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 74
  • Sustainability: 85
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 8.2%; rating input score 8
  • Program expense ratio: 72.8%; rating input score 73
  • Fundraising efficiency: $111.41 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 88; 88th 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: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • 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: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 90%; rating input score 99; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 9.05; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 23%; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • Where the money goes: 8.2% of revenue deployed · 72.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 4 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $418K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $132K · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 27 of 27 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 8/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 10/100.