Safe Hands for Girls Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
464883189
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Atlanta, GA, USA
Phone
4043903755
Rating
61
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Health Support Services

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$718,173
Expenses
$544,050
Assets
$348,986
Liabilities
$489,047

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JAHA DUKUREH (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • JAHA DUKUREH (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $183,016 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To create awareness about female genital mutilation and its harmful effects; help fight to eliminate it; and provide support to survivors of the practice.

What it reported doing in 2025

After ten years of powerful advocacy to end female genital mutilation (fgm) and gender-based violence (gbv), safe hands for girls recognized that the foundation, for all freedom, is economic. The regenerative hubs program was created to bridge our advocacy with action by empowering women and youth to rebuild their communities through substainable livelihoods. Each hub trains survivors and at-risk women in regenerative agriculture, soil restoration, and climate-smart entrepreneurship, transforming land once depleted and lives once marginalized. By linking economic opportunity with the prevention of harmful practices, regenerative hubs advance safe hands for girls' mission to create safety, dignity, and lasting independence for women and girls.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 97% 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. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 76
  • Transparency & Controls: 33
  • Accountability: 69
  • Sustainability: 46
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 67.6%; rating input score 68
  • Program expense ratio: 89.2%; rating input score 89
  • Fundraising efficiency: $60.3 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 84.6%; rating input score 85; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • 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; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: 24.2%; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.64; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 1.4; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 33.6%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 6% per year; rating input score 100; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.7% per year; rating input score 100; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 2.4% per year; rating input score 100; 24th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 67.6% of revenue deployed · 89.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 10 filed program accomplishments · $486K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $183K · 5 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 25 of 27 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes foreign activity and executive pay
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2014 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 8 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 31/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 2/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 6/100.
  • 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.