The Maisha Project Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
464992172
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Oklahoma City, OK, USA
Phone
4054453440
Rating
71
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Personal Social Services

Reported finances

Revenue
$626,852
Expenses
$583,418
Assets
$104,691
Liabilities
$35,460

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

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Beatrice Williamson (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Beatrice Williamson (Executive Director): $72,000 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 transform lives and empower communities by providing lasting solutions to poverty, hunger, disease and under-education.

What it reported doing in 2024

Maisha is determined to break the vicious cycle of poverty through education, health and empowerment, infrastructure, and missions to enhance the quality of life for each child and their community. We empowered Kenyans through healthy feeding programs, medical missions, and education. The impact is told one success story at a time and is collectively known as the Maisha Story. The story began when Anna Lanson gave Beatrice a sponsorship for education. The story of transformation continues one person at a time thanks to a coalition of support.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 62% for direct work, and 38% for 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. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 72
  • Transparency & Controls: 76
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 34
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 72.7%; rating input score 73
  • Program expense ratio: 78.1%; rating input score 78
  • Fundraising efficiency: $12.97 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 19th 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: 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • 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: 6.9%; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.18; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.34; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 12.3%; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -2.4% per year; rating input score 0; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -1.5% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4.2% per year; rating input score 100; 35th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 72.7% of revenue deployed · 78.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $456K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $72K · 9 people listed
  • Consistency: 29 of 30 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2014 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 46/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 8/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 55/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 22/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 30/100.