Aghaby Comprehensive Community Health Center

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN: 462637814
IRS 990 coverage: 2016–2024
Forms available: Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2015
Location: Walnut Park, CA, USA
Phone: 4247855170
Rating: 72
Verdict: SUPPORTED
Rating confidence: Moderate
Sector: Ambulatory Health Center, Community Clinic

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue: $4,911,455
Expenses: $3,250,125
Assets: $9,105,332
Liabilities: $457,558

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

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

DR NAGY BEBAWY (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

DR NAGY BEBAWY (CEO): $344,413 total reported compensation
GITY QADER (NP): $238,617 total reported compensation
JOHN PAZIRANDEH (CFO): $146,850 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 provide access to affordable and quality medical services to the residents of compton, and walnut park, California, and las vegas, Nevada, and its surrounding communities.

What it reported doing in 2024

The organization maintains and operates state-licensed community health clinics in walnut and compton, California for families. These clinics provide medical, dental, and general medical services for children, adults, and seniors regardless or where they reside. The organization runs the clinics with a vision to be a leading community-based health center, providing afforable quality health care services to all. The organization contracts directly or indirectly with governmental agencies. Both locations were designated as federally qualified health center look-alike by hrsa effective september 2017. A las vegas location was opened in 2021.

Operating model

Revenue model: Earned-program. 99% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

Financial Efficiency: 59
Transparency & Controls: 70
Accountability: 95
Sustainability: 71
Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

Mission deployment rate: 54.8%; rating input score 55
Program expense ratio: 83.9%; rating input score 84
Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Pass
Foreign activity oversight: Limited
Grant itemization coverage: Limited
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: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

Operating margin: 33.8%; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.8; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.05; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
Officer compensation ratio: 24.8%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

Program expense growth: 21.7% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings
Revenue growth: 24.2% per year; rating input score 100; 91st percentile among comparable filings
Asset growth: 33.8% per year; rating input score 100; 95th percentile among comparable filings

Details

Where the money goes: 54.8% of revenue deployed · 83.9% of spending went to programs
Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2.7M in reported program spending
Leadership: top reported pay $344K · 13 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
Highest-paid contractors: 3 contractors listed · $450K reported
Consistency: 31 of 31 current checks pass
Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
Filing history: 8 filing years from 2016 to 2024
Contacts: How to reach this organization
Money network: 5 filed money-flow records
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.

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 55/100.
Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 8/100.
Review — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization could not be resolved against the register, so the check is unfinished.