Microfinancing Partners in Africa

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
861171133
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
St Louis, MO, USA
Phone
3147761319
Rating
68
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
International Economic Development

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$700,717
Expenses
$758,341
Assets
$1,026,110
Liabilities
$9,158

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

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • J TYLER BLICKHAN (PRESIDENT)
  • CHRISTIAN WARGO (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • CHRISTIAN WARGO (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $32,188 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Microfinancing partners in africa (mpa) provides grants for the strengthening and expansion of microfinancing programs in africa, to empower those living in extreme poverty to lift themselves up with dignity through access to financial services and education.

What it reported doing in 2024

The two other programs are the health program and the clean water program. Microfinancing partners in africa's safe woman/health program helps mothers thrive via access to pre-natal care, education and microfinancing. Microfinancing partners in africa equips midwives with ultrasounds to identify three high-risk obstetric conditions that would mandate referral to a health facility with an obstetrician and educating the mothers on the importance of delivering at the village health center. Microfinancing partners in africa's water program funds bore holes and easy-to-maintain water filters to support groups to manage clean water as group income projects, help families in poverty afford clean water via small loans or pay-it-forward plans, and empowers members to train others.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 89% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 73% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of total spending goes to programs and the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 57
  • Transparency & Controls: 70
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 39
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 64.7%; rating input score 65
  • Program expense ratio: 57.4%; rating input score 57
  • Fundraising efficiency: $5.24 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 84.6%; rating input score 85; 2nd 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: 97.5%; rating input score 97; 45th 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: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: -8.2%; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.35; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.2%; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 9.1% per year; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6.2% per year; rating input score 100; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8.3% per year; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 64.7% of revenue deployed · 57.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 14 of 14 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $435K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $32K · 14 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $105K reported
  • Consistency: 28 of 30 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and grants
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2014 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 57/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 7 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 19/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 19/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 52/100.
  • 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.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 55/100.