American Institute of Pakistan Studies

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
710762618
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Madison, WI, USA
Phone
6082651471
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$825,283
Expenses
$754,963
Assets
$853,277
Liabilities
$210,286

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

Leadership & pay

47 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MATTHEW A COOK (PRESIDENT)
  • DANIEL MAJCHROWICZ (VICE-PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • MATTHEW A COOK (PRESIDENT)
  • DANIEL MAJCHROWICZ (VICE-PRESIDENT)
  • SAMEETAH AGHA (SECRETARY)

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 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To promote academic study of pakistan in the united states and to encourage scholarly exchange between the united states and pakistan.

What it reported doing in 2024

U.s. Department of education project funding for promoting postgraduate research, exchange, and area studies on pakistan; contribution to develop a pool of experts on pakistan in the u.s.; and promotes access to research and training overseas.council of american overseas research centers - fellowship support for american scholars conducting research on pakistan studies and lectures by pakistani scholars at u.s. Institutions.u.s. Embassy facilitations cooperative agreement - facilitation of exchanges and in-country programming for american and pakistani scholars, practitioners, and officials in a variety of fields.u.s. Embassy umbrella agreement - facilitation of exchanges and in-country programming for american and pakistani scholars, students, and practitioners in a variety of fields.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 65% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 80% for direct work, and 20% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Revenue has declined or grown slowly and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 72
  • Transparency & Controls: 80
  • Accountability: 94
  • Sustainability: 54
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 79.2%; rating input score 79
  • Program expense ratio: 85.2%; rating input score 85
  • 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: Pass
    • Conducts field audits: Limited
    • May suspend future funding: Limited
    • Requires financial reports: Limited
    • Conducts site visits: Limited
    • Requires grant agreements: Limited
    • May require repayment: Limited
  • 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: 6 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 86
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 8.5%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.13; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.25; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 2.5% per year; rating input score 100; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -1.2% per year; rating input score 0; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -4.7% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 79.2% of revenue deployed · 85.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 47 of 47 board members independent · 6 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $643K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 47 people listed
  • Consistency: 29 of 29 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and grants
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2015 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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.

  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 58/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 47/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 28/100.