Mali Wellness Foundation
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 844062328
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2022–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2020
- Location
- Provo, UT, USA
- Phone
- 8016024288
- Rating
- 79
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Eye Diseases, Blindness and Vision Impairments
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $2,204,323
- Expenses
- $2,119,428
- Assets
- $567,152
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
7 people listed
People named in this filing
- Michael Clayton (Exec. Director; Director)
- Kedrick Clayton (Treasurer; Director)
- Dallin Anderson (Director)
Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Provide health, wellness, agricultural and educational services and resources to promote well-being and self-sufficiency for poor villages in Mali and other African countries.
What it reported doing in 2024
Education support: Built 3 new schools with 4 classrooms, headmaster office, and restrooms and desk at Degnekoro, Tanabougou and Koyala and 2 outdoor basketball courts. Villages served: Degnekoro, Tanabougou, Koyalo, Bamako, and Kalabancoura. Conducted 3 two-day basketball camps at Cairo, Egypt, Conakry Guinea and Bamako, Mali with 8 college athletes, and built 2 outdoor courts for 550 youth and 100 coaches. Built 2 outdoor basketball courts at Kalabancoura, Mali and Bamako, Mali. Sponsored 13 Malian youth to atttend private school in Bamako, Mali and sponsored 3 young Malian you to come to USA. Persons served: 17,168.
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 86% of its reported program spending out as grants.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 83
- Transparency & Controls: 73
- Accountability: 82
- Sustainability: 47
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 92.3%; rating input score 92
- Program expense ratio: 96%; rating input score 96
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 83.3%; rating input score 83; 1st percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
- Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
- 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; 72nd 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 4 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 57
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
- 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: 3.9%; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.27; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 50.8% per year; rating input score 100; 97th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 42.9% per year; rating input score 100; 97th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 16.4% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 92.3% of revenue deployed · 96% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 4 of 7 filing controls reported
- Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $2M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 7 people listed
- Consistency: 20 of 22 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
- Filing history: 3 filing years from 2022 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
- 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: 7 of 8 not reported.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 6 not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 8/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 47/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.