Afghan Home USA

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
862810594
IRS 990 coverage
2022–2022
Forms available
Form 990 2022, Form 990-N 2021
Location
Woodbridge, VA, USA
Rating
69
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Cultural, Ethnic Awareness

Reported finances

Revenue
$407,857
Expenses
$380,625
Assets
$27,232
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2022. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

People named in this filing

  • Ajmal Safi (Director)
  • Shallah Shaiq (Director)
  • Zabihullah Attayee (Director)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2022. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To serve the needs of the Afghan community in DMV area.

What it reported doing in 2022

To serving the needs of the Afghan community in DMV area.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

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 a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 50
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Accountability: 82
  • Sustainability: 45
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 50.1%; rating input score 50
  • Program expense ratio: 53.7%; rating input score 54
  • Fundraising efficiency: $9.17 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 57
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: 6.7%; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.07; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • Where the money goes: 50.1% of revenue deployed · 53.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 4 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $204K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 7 people listed
  • Consistency: 14 of 14 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 50/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 54/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 35/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 5/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 55/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.