Network for Africa
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 261502938
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2010–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2024
- Location
- Charlottesville, VA, USA
- Phone
- 6504686010
- Rating
- 43
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- International Relief
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $57,404
- Expenses
- $34,454
- Assets
- $50,497
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
5 people listed
People named in this filing
- REBECCA TINSLEY (DIRECTOR/SECRETARY/TREASUR)
- TINA KISTLER (DIRECTOR)
- STACEY LYDON (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-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To promote the relief of poverty for individuals in need in africa; the advancement of education in africa; and the prevention of ill health in africa.
What it reported doing in 2024
Network for africa uk (n4a uk): n4a uk administers several projects in africa, all with the goal of rebuilding communities, in partnership with local leaders, after war and genocide, with a special focus on women and children. These projects include the following: rwanda: n4a works with survivors fund (surf) to provide counseling for survivors of violence, in particular the 1994 genocide in rwanda. After the genocide in 1994, thousands of orphans missed school, often living on the street, caring for groups of younger orphans (child-headed households). Addressing trauma, anxiety and depression is crucial if a community is to rebuild. Although the genocide was 25 years ago, the rwandan ministry of health estimates 35% of survivors have mental health issues. Surf beneficiaries include unemployed school dropouts; young women with unplanned babies - a particularly lonely, isolated and vulnerable group who despair of life; rape survivors; some with crippling social anxiety; and some with HIV. The surf project includes a holistic package of entrepreneurship training to help survivors achieve sustainable livelihood.uganda and sierra leone: n4a works with community leaders, including the organizations bnuu and conforti, to strengthen mental health provision by working with and developing existing health structures. Projects consists of extensive training not only for project staff, but also for village health teams, local counselors, health center staff, and key community leaders such as teachers and religious leaders, equipping them to build knowledge, raise awareness and ensure long-term sustainability. A key part of the training is community education sessions, designed to raise awareness and share positive messages about mental illness, thereby reducing stigma encouraging people to seek treatment. Our program follows the world health organization's mental health gap action plan (mhgap) for mental health provision in poor countries. In addition, beneficiaries form self-help groups in order to advocate for better mental health provision, raise the profile of mental illness and work together to start income generating livelihoods.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- 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 and revenue comfortably covers expenses. 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: 0
- Transparency & Controls: 100
- Sustainability: 67
- Growth: 0
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
- Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 40%; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.47; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 5.8%; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -40.8% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -4% per year; rating input score 0; 37th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -6.3% per year; rating input score 0; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
- Consistency: 8 of 9 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 3 filed schedules
- Filing history: 13 filing years from 2010 to 2024
- 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part III transfer expenses within program total did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 57/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 10/100.