Project Orphans Inc Dba Tulsa Girls Home

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
461308463
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Tulsa, OK, USA
Phone
6787994947
Rating
69
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Protestant
Affiliation
Christianity

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,595,729
Expenses
$1,539,467
Assets
$2,321,873
Liabilities
$8,765

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

24 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Brittany Stokes (President)
  • Christina Yarid (Vice President)
  • Andy Smith (Cmte President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Brittany Stokes (President): $86,771 total reported compensation
  • Christina Yarid (Vice President): $7,000 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

We exist to provide: 1. Community development & care to orphans, vulnerable children, powerless young-women and broken families located in Uganda, Africa. 2. The highest quality residential care for girls needing placement outside their home for the purpose of supporting each girl to heal from trauma and become responsible women who understand their value and potential. We undertake this mission on the premise that no girl is ever lost, all girls are valuable, and all are worthy of love.We take a long-term approach to what we do & go beyond simple involvement in the lives of the children, girls and people we serve.

What it reported doing in 2025

Tulsa Girls Home (TGH) is a 24/7 therapeutic residential group home providing the highest quality care for girls in Oklahoma foster care. TGH is dedicated to not only meeting contract and licensing requirements, outlined by the state of Oklahoma, but committed to go above and beyond by providing individualized counseling and therapy interventions helping girls heal from extreme trauma. TGH is committed to providing advocacy, training and educational supports to those in Oklahoma to raise awareness around foster care and prevention supports.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 69% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 65% for direct work, and 35% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and program spending has grown recently. The filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars and a relatively small share of voting board members are independent.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 87
  • Transparency & Controls: 56
  • Accountability: 50
  • Sustainability: 49
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 86.9%; rating input score 87
  • Program expense ratio: 89.9%; rating input score 90
  • Fundraising efficiency: $52.28 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Limited
    • Conducts field audits: Limited
    • May suspend future funding: Limited
    • Requires financial reports: Pass
    • Conducts site visits: Limited
    • Requires grant agreements: Limited
    • May require repayment: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 0%; rating input score 0; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 50%; rating input score 50; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 3.5%; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.51; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 6.1%; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 21% per year; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 21% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 25.5% per year; rating input score 100; 86th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 86.9% of revenue deployed · 89.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 24 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $1.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $87K · 24 people listed
  • Consistency: 25 of 26 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2015 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 50/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 41/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 56/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 48/100.