Prototype — every organisation, score and review below is illustrative sample data, not a real assessment.

TumainiBridge
← All organisations

Kasese · Child nutrition

Kasese Child Nutrition Collective

Community-run therapeutic feeding for children under five.

Children under 5Rural subsistence families

A collective of 22 village nutrition groups that screen children monthly and run therapeutic feeding with locally sourced supplements. Caregivers are trained as screeners, so coverage continues between clinical visits. The collective has strong household-level cost data and weaker formal governance documentation.

Pillar I · Human Impact

Human Impact

How the organisation is rooted in the community it serves, and whether its work holds together as a credible theory of change.

7.2/ 10 · mean of five metrics
  • 1.Community voice & beneficiary feedback

    8.0

    Caregiver committees hold veto over supplement sourcing; minutes submitted for 11 meetings.

  • 2.Local leadership & staff representation

    9.0

    All coordinators are group members from Kasese; leadership is entirely local.

  • 3.Theory of change coherence

    7.0

    Clear pathway from screening to recovery, though recovery is tracked for only one cohort year.

  • 4.Transparency & financial accountability

    5.0

    Internal accounts only — no external audit submitted. Registration certificate present.

  • 5.Adaptive capacity & learning culture

    7.0

    Switched supplement recipe after a documented acceptance problem in 2023.

Pillar II · Funding Profile

Funding Profile

What a donor's money reaches, who it reaches, and what funding history the organisation already carries.

6.4/ 10 · mean of five metrics
  • 6.Cost per impacted woman or child

    9.0

    Strong unit cost workings with itemised supplement and screening costs.

  • 7.Demographic focus & vulnerability specificity

    8.0

    MUAC-based targeting with vulnerability screening documented.

  • 8.Economic factor impacted

    8.0

    Household clinic-visit costs avoided evidenced by a 140-household sample.

  • 9.Number of previous donor relationships

    4.0

    One named institutional funder plus diaspora giving; limited funder history.

  • 10.Types of previous donor support received

    3.0

    Small restricted grants only; no technical or unrestricted support recorded.