Our Daughters International

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
454171638
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2020
Location
Rochester Hills, MI, USA
Phone
8006348220
Rating
68
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Human Service Organizations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,756,176
Expenses
$1,597,000
Assets
$2,943,723
Liabilities
$52,575

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Ramesh Sapkota (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Kristi Kirschmann (Executive Dir.): $78,750 total reported compensation
  • John M Lucarelli II (Treasurer): $6,000 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

We exist to bring an end to human trafficking in Nepal, and to see lives and communities transformed

What it reported doing in 2024

EMPOWERMENT, TRAINING, AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: To ensure our daughters are not vulnerable to being trafficked again, during their 6-9 month stay in the training center they are taught a job skill which enables them to establish their own microbusiness. This business will provide them with a sustainable income. They are also instructed on how to become an anti-trafficking advocate so as they return home, they can help protect others from the same fate. As our daughters return to their communities, they establish women's empowerment groups. As empowered community leaders, they establish self-sustaining businesses, bring anti-trafficking and child-marriage awareness to their communities, encourage self-value and leadership, and host cooperatives farming, job skills training, and savings groups and entrepreneurial development.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 85% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 92% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 72
  • Transparency & Controls: 49
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 60
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 75.1%; rating input score 75
  • Program expense ratio: 80.8%; rating input score 81
  • Fundraising efficiency: $7.39 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 85.7%; rating input score 86; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 0 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Fail
    • 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: 0%; rating input score 0; 13th 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: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 9.1%; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.84; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5.3%; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 12.1% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 16.7% per year; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 21.4% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 75.1% of revenue deployed · 80.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $1.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $79K · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 21 of 23 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2013 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 8 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 28/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 59/100.
  • 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 52/100.