Kula Project Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
455273875
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-T 2025, Form 990-N 2013
Location
Lynchburg, VA, USA
Phone
9162171325
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Energy Resources Conservation and Development

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$702,683
Expenses
$828,471
Assets
$439,558
Liabilities
$4,637

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

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Nicholas Lauten (Board Chair and Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Nicholas Lauten (Board Chair and Executive Director): $102,600 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Kula exists to eradicate poverty through the development of entrepreneurs in Rwanda's coffee communities. We operate at the intersection of economic development, environmental sustainability, and gender equality, providing a poverty (continued on Schedule O) graduation model that joins regenerative agriculture support with entrepreneurial development and business coaching, empowering coffee farmers to increase their household income and move out of extreme poverty and into a life of prosperity, vision, agency, and hope.

What it reported doing in 2025

KULA Fellowship: The Kula Fellowship joins regenerative agriculture, household entrepreneurship, and personal coaching to equip coffee farming families to move out of extreme poverty and into a life of prosperity, vision, agency, and hope.

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 75% 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 fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 80
  • Transparency & Controls: 80
  • Accountability: 80
  • Sustainability: 22
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 91.7%; rating input score 92
  • Program expense ratio: 76.5%; rating input score 76
  • Fundraising efficiency: $8.09 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 28; 28th 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: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Pass
    • 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: 75%; rating input score 75; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -17.9%; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.53; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 12.4%; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 13% per year; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 10% per year; rating input score 100; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 18.1% per year; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 91.7% of revenue deployed · 76.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 4 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $633K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $103K · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 25 of 25 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2016 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: 6 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 28/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 7/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 26/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Document-retention policy not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 31/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 59/100.