Sacred Valley Project Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
271185258
IRS 990 coverage
2018–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2020, Form 990-N 2012
Location
Montclair, NJ, USA
Phone
4404974190
Rating
81
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
International Development

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$378,318
Expenses
$334,210
Assets
$443,439
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Alex Ball (President & Exec Dir)

People named in this filing

  • Kelly Moynihan (Treasurer)
  • Shannon Calloway (Secretary)
  • Mary O'Conner Brunsing (Board Member)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

To provide boarding and supplementary education for young women from low- income families in remote areas of the Andes so that they can continue and complete their secondary education.

What it reported doing in 2025

The mission of the Sacred Valley Project (SVP) is to provide boarding and supplementary education for young women from remote Andean communities so that they can continue and complete their secondary education.SVP facilitates secondary school access for indigenous girls from remote communities. SVP currently operates three dormitories, enabling 54 girls to attend secondary school. The dormitories remove the barrier of a long, unsafe and often impossible journey to secondary school. While living at the dormitory, girls receive comprehensive support and full-time supervision. SVP provides daily balanced meals, supplemental academic support through small-group tutoring, extracurricular activities, and mental and physical health care. SVP's culturally sensitive approach is guided by community engagement in the project. Many SVP graduates have the goal of returning home after their studies to support their families and communities. SVP envisions a world in which every girl has access to a quality education and the opportunity to reach her full potential. SVP aims to achieve this vision by supporting rural, indigenous Peruvian girls in their educational goals.In the Sacred Valley of Peru, the world's most direct descendants of the Inca Empire live in extreme poverty, struggling to meet even the most basic of needs. One of the most severe problems for rural villages in the region is a lack of access to public services. Children must walk several hours to the nearest elementary school and high schools are often only located in larger towns, too far from home for students to commute daily. While boys often move to urban centers to pursue an education, this same opportunity is not available for many girls. In 2010, SVP was founded in order to address the need for better access to secondary schools for adolescent girls. During our first year of operation, we served 6 students. Today, SVP serves more than 50 girls from over 20 different Andean communities in the Sacred Valley of Peru. The Sacred Valley Project addresses the need for better access to secondary school for Quechua girls from rural Andean communities by removing the barrier of a long and unsafe journey, providing a dormitory and education center where the girls can live in a safe and nurturing environment all while receiving nutritious meals, after school tutoring, mentorship and post-secondary guidance.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 98% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 98% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 87
  • Transparency & Controls: 77
  • Accountability: 76
  • Sustainability: 59
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 83.8%; rating input score 84
  • Program expense ratio: 94.6%; rating input score 95
  • Fundraising efficiency: $78.58 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 81; 81st 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: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 81st 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 43
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 11.7%; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.33; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 5.8% per year; rating input score 100; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3% per year; rating input score 100; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 12.2% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 83.8% of revenue deployed · 94.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $316K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 18 of 18 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2018 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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: 7 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 6 not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 59/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 48/100.