Moka
Legal name: Moka Corporation
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 382227805
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2009–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
- Location
- Muskegon, MI, USA
- Phone
- 2318309376
- Rating
- 77
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Standard
- Sector
- Group Homes
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $27,612,414
- Expenses
- $27,246,078
- Assets
- $19,392,130
- Liabilities
- $6,483,428
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
12 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- DANIEL HOLTROP (PRESIDENT)
- MATTIE DEN HERDER (VICE PRESIDENT/SECRETARY)
- TRACEY HAMLET (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- TRACEY HAMLET (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $193,363 total reported compensation
- BRYAN VOSS (FINANCE DIRECTOR): $122,360 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
MOKA's mission is to empower people with intellectual and developmental disabilities by creating opportunities for independence and acceptance in our communities.
What it reported doing in 2024
Supported employment and living: create job opportunities, in-home training, support and resource coordination geared towards clients with developmental, mental and/or physical disabilities. Clients served: 325
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 96% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 77
- Transparency & Controls: 70
- Accountability: 91
- Sustainability: 41
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 84.7%; rating input score 85
- Program expense ratio: 85.2%; rating input score 85
- Fundraising efficiency: $3.86 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 8th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: Limited
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Fail
- Other executive compensation review process: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 1.3%; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.71; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.33; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 1.2%; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 3.3% per year; rating input score 100; 28th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 2.9% per year; rating input score 100; 25th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 4.8% per year; rating input score 100; 34th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 4 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
- Where the money goes: 84.7% of revenue deployed · 85.2% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $23.2M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $193K · 12 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $946K reported
- Consistency: 29 of 30 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
- Filing history: 15 filing years from 2009 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
- 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.
- Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.
Key Signals
Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.
Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 15/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 39/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 25/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 43/100.
- High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.