Kisoboka Uganda

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
474805281
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Waltham, MA, USA
Phone
6176337053
Rating
65
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Human Service Organizations

Reported finances

Revenue
$397,024
Expenses
$379,592
Assets
$70,192
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • Sandra Gannon (Founder): $40,000 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

For the people of Uganda: assistance for education, training, & small business initiatives; meals & healthcare; potable water. In cooperation with Kisoboka Initiative for Progress Ltd. in Uganda.

What it reported doing in 2024

The entirety of the organization's program service accomplishment is achieved in Uganda. Grants to Kisoboka Initiative for Progress, Ltd. (KIP) are made monthly, twelve times per year. KIP is a charitable entity limited by guarantee, based in Uganda. Kisoboka means "it is possible" in Lugandan. Monthly allocations to KIP provide for tuition, meals, and medical care. In addition, select monthly allocations include special items: school supplies and uniforms, school facilities, medical facilities, clean water facilities, hens and goats, and small business grants. The organization is KIP's primary source of funding. KIP provides regular reports to the organization on the status of initiatives. KIP operates the Kisoboka Junior Primary School, Kisoboka High School, and the Kisoboka Medical Center (located in the Wakiso district west of Kampala, Uganda). KIP also provides support for Christ the King High School and Shalom Restoration Academy in greater Kampala. By the numbers, KIP provides over 500 meals per school day, enrolls over 600 primary school students, over 200 high school students, and provides tuition assistance for 13 post-secondary students.

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 100% 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. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 73
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 52
  • Sustainability: 39
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 80.6%; rating input score 81
  • Program expense ratio: 84.3%; rating input score 84
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 13th 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: 97.7%; rating input score 98; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 80%; rating input score 80; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 14
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Limited
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 4.4%; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.18; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 10.5%; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 0.7% per year; rating input score 100; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -4% per year; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -19.1% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 80.6% of revenue deployed · 84.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 5 board members independent · 1 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $320K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $40K · 3 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 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.

  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 8 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 10/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 49/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 28/100.