Kuda Vana Partnership International

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
822333596
IRS 990 coverage
2018–2025
Official website data refreshed
Jul 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2017
Location
Littleton, CO, USA
Phone
+1 (720) 213-8686
Rating
84
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
International Relief

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$643,217
Expenses
$709,797
Assets
$257,598
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SHELTON TAGUMA (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • SHELTON TAGUMA (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $79,300 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

We partner with local organizations to empower communities to support vulnerable children, families, and youth transitioning from care.

What it reported doing in 2025

In 2025, kuda vana partnership international distributed funds to provide holistic care to orphaned and vulnerable infants, children, and young adults in zimbabwe. Funds were used to provide these children with safe, family-style housing, nutrition and healthcare, k-12 and post-secondary education, life skills development and vocational training, agricultural programs, mental health support, and emotional and spiritual guidance from caring adults. Funds were also utilized to prevent family separation through the provision of essential food items, educational support, access to health care, spiritual support, and parenting support to vulnerable families in the region. This includes funding for follow-up and support with adoptive and foster families.

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 91% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

STRONG - 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: 92
  • Transparency & Controls: 79
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 26
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 92.9%; rating input score 93
  • Fundraising efficiency: $15.02 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 47; 47th 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: 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: 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: Pass
    • 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: -10.4%; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.36; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 11.2%; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 10.5% per year; rating input score 100; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 11.3% per year; rating input score 100; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 16% per year; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 4 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 2 operating locations identified
  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 92.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $659K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $79K · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 21 of 21 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2018 to 2025
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 8 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 47/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 13/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 18/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 34/100.