Maasai Conservation Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
392562924
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2025–2025
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2025
Location
Holland, MI, USA
Phone
4174939295
Rating
42
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Fund Raising and/or Fund Distribution

Reported finances

Revenue
$87,920
Expenses
$87,485
Assets
$435

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

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Clamian S Kitesho (President)

People named in this filing

  • Paul A Bush (Executive Dir.)
  • Amy C Bush (Secretary)
  • John Kran (Trustee)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

To assist charities operating in the Maasai community West of Arusha, Tanzania, and in particular to come alongside the director and board of the Nashipay Maasai School operating in Makuyuni, Tanzania to support educational programs in that region and to enable such organizations to provide educational and spiritual care for the underserved Maasai peoples in the name of Christ;

What it reported doing in 2025

Awarded a program grant of $86,500 to Maasai Conservation Foundation Tanzania for the acquisition of two safari vehicles. The vehicles create direct employment opportunities for local Maasai guides and generates revenue that supports the community development initiatives. This furthers the organizational exempt purpose of promoting sustainable livelihoods and economic self-sufficiency in underserved indigenous communities.

Operating model

Revenue model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent revenue detail to tell how this nonprofit funds its work.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 1
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Sustainability: 30
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 1.1%; rating input score 1
  • Program expense ratio: 1.1%; rating input score 1

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 0.5%; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

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

Details

  • Where the money goes: 1.1% of revenue deployed · 1.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $985 in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 7 people listed
  • Consistency: 6 of 7 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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 1/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 1/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part III transfer expenses within program total did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 7/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 45/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.