The Kukhoma Project

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
824280104
IRS 990 coverage
2019–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2018
Location
Dallas, TX, USA
Phone
2147082350
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Human Service Organizations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$516,268
Expenses
$895,018
Assets
$67,149
Liabilities
$98,535

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • Mariah Glasener (Development & Operations Manager): $53,217 total reported compensation
  • Amanda Switzer (Executive Dir.): $47,219 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The Kukhoma Project exists for Gods glory to rescue teen mothers who have been victims of abuse, to restore, equip and empower these girls and their communities.

What it reported doing in 2024

The Kukhoma Project runs a full-time care facility for pregnant, abused, teen girls which provides comprehensive care and skills training during a 2-year residential program. During these two years, while girls receive support under the protective roof of the TKP House, her family is also engaged separately and provided similar program support. Upon completion of the program, girls will return to their communities restored from trauma and brokenness, equipped and strengthened with skills to care for themselves and their families, and empowered to have impact and be the change in their world.

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 96% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

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

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 83
  • Transparency & Controls: 77
  • Accountability: 50
  • Sustainability: 6
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 81.9%; rating input score 82
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 85.7%; rating input score 86; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 0 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Limited
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Fail
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -73.4%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.08; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 1.47; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 11.2%; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 24.7% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 22.9% per year; rating input score 100; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 15.8% per year; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 81.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 7 board members independent · 0 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $733K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $53K · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 28 of 28 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2019 to 2024
  • 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.

Key Signals

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

  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 7 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 7 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 2/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 4/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 3/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 33/100.