Tanzania Life Project

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
680611130
IRS 990 coverage
2021–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Wayzata, MN, USA
Phone
5088012140
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Water Resource, Wetlands Conservation and Management

Reported finances

Revenue
$349,488
Expenses
$330,022
Assets
$65,251
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

People named in this filing

  • Sam Claassen (Chairman)
  • Cindy Johnson (Vice-Chair)
  • John Vanderheyden (Treasurer)

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

Empowering Life Through Sustainable Clean Water

What it reported doing in 2025

WASH and MHM Programs - We held Water Sanitation and Hygiene WASH training for the village of Bahi Makulu including special sessions for the schools along with a contest for improving WASH practices. We provided a WASH Best Practice Seminar for the villages of Chitope and Chipanga where they visited a very successful village to observe ask questions and learn so they could incorporate these lessons into practices in their own village. We held a menstrual hygiene management MHM training with a distribution of reusable feminine hygiene kits in the village of Bahi Makulu. These kits were produced in the area by a small local business.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - 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 revenue has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 92
  • Transparency & Controls: 62
  • Accountability: 88
  • Sustainability: 43
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 91.7%; rating input score 92
  • Program expense ratio: 97.1%; rating input score 97
  • Fundraising efficiency: $63.59 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 72.7%; rating input score 73; 0th 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: 97.1%; rating input score 97; 59th 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: 5 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 71
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • 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: 5.6%; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.2; rating input score 12; 12th 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: 50.7% per year; rating input score 100; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -0.7% per year; rating input score 0; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 0.1% per year; rating input score 100; 22nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 91.7% of revenue deployed · 97.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $320K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 38 of 42 current checks pass · 4 findings to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2021 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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 — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 12/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 48/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX AllOtherExpenses column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX ForeignGrants column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • 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.