The Soft Power Health Trust

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
206195776
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Purchase, NY, USA
Phone
9142827354
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Specifically Named Diseases

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$814,286
Expenses
$576,059
Assets
$1,497,788
Liabilities
$23,005

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

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DR JESSIE STONE (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • DR JESSIE STONE (PRESIDENT): $2,500 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 soft power health trust ("sph trust") is a non-profit organization dedicated to funding the soft power mukagwa allan stone community health ("the clinic") which provides malaria education, prevention and control, family planning, and primary and preventative healthcare in uganda.

What it reported doing in 2024

The soft power health trust provides funds to the clinic employing an entirely ugandan staff which currently includes 4 medical doctors, 5 nurse practitioners, 16 nurses, 4 laboratory technicians, 5 laboratory assistants, 1 dentist, 4 physical therapists, a pediatric triage team (of 3 people), 3 domestic violence counselors, 1 receptionist, 5 reception and triage assistants, 1 country manager, 1 daily operations manager, 1 compound manager, 1 assistant manager, 1 data entry supervisor, 2 data entry specialists, 3 social workers, 5 drivers, 6 outreach educators and mobilizers, 8 dig gardeners, 3 cooks, 3 cleaning staff, 2 support/patient logistics staff, 3 maintenance staff, 1 accountant, and 5 security guards (askaris).

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 93% 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 - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 56
  • Transparency & Controls: 80
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 76
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 55.8%; rating input score 56
  • Program expense ratio: 75.3%; rating input score 75
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Pass
    • 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: 29.3%; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.6; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0.4%; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 3.1% per year; rating input score 100; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 9% per year; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 20.6% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 55.8% of revenue deployed · 75.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 3 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $434K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $2K · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 23 of 23 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 56/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 6 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.