Red Sweater Project

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
275222528
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2015, Form 990-T 2024
Location
Lake Oswego, OR, USA
Phone
9713351328
Rating
71
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Educational Services and Schools - Other

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$328,099
Expenses
$284,052
Assets
$222,249
Liabilities
$39,100

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

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • Ashley Holmer (Executive Dir.): $57,600 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To increase access to secondary school education programs for the indigenous children of Tanzania, Africa.

What it reported doing in 2024

The Red Sweater Project has worked alongside community members in the launching of the village's first secondary school in Mungere Village, Tanzania. The Organization operates the school with approval from the local government leaderships. The school had 137 students in 2019. The Organization's focus on quality education has set us apart since the beginning. Our success is not defined by the number schools we build, but the effectiveness of our graduates as leaders in their communities. In 2013, Mungere students scored in the top quarter of schools in our region and second in the district. In 2018 the school graduated its second form IV Class. Every Mungere graduate passed their national exams, compared with only 30 nationally. The School is recognized by the Tanzania Ministry of Education for investing in a long term vision for students while achieving expeditious results for its students.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 67% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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 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: 87
  • Transparency & Controls: 50
  • Accountability: 69
  • Sustainability: 45
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 80.7%; rating input score 81
  • Program expense ratio: 93.2%; rating input score 93
  • Fundraising efficiency: $490.03 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 96; 96th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Grant itemization coverage: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 13.4%; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.78; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.18; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 20.3%; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 6.5% per year; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.7% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.4% per year; rating input score 100; 49th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 80.7% of revenue deployed · 93.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $265K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $58K · 7 people listed
  • Consistency: 20 of 20 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes foreign activity
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2016 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 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.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 34/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 19/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 21/100.