Why Not Africa

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
842375147
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2021–2025
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2025, Form 990-N 2022
Location
Fortson, GA, USA
Rating
35
Verdict
REVIEW
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Reported finances

Revenue
$74,453
Expenses
$78,588
Assets
$2,296

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

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Gina Cox (Executive Director)
  • Jeremy Northington (Assistant Executive Director)

People named in this filing

  • Gina Cox (Executive Director)
  • Jeremy Northington (Assistant Executive Director)
  • Dreck L Watson (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-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To supply funds for the education clothing and spiritual support of rural children in Uganda Africa.

What it reported doing in 2025

Funded local rural children near the town of Idudi Uganda to attend primary school. Helped with funding rural children to attend school near Bugweri district Uganda.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

REVIEW - The filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 2
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 25
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 1.9%; rating input score 2
  • Program expense ratio: 1.8%; rating input score 2

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -5.6%; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.03; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -75.2% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -4.3% per year; rating input score 0; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -39.1% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 1.9% of revenue deployed · 1.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 2 filed program accomplishments · $1K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 6 of 7 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2021 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 2/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 2/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part III transfer expenses within program total did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 34/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 9/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.