Arab and Chaldean Resource Center

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
920847794
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2025–2025
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2025, Form 990-N 2023
Location
Dearborn, MI, USA
Rating
61
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Philanthropy, Charity, Voluntarism Promotion

Reported finances

Revenue
$53,670
Expenses
$30,388
Assets
$34,672

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Fadel Nabilsi (President)

People named in this filing

  • Karim Kadouh (Director)
  • Fadel Nabilsi (President)
  • Hind Omar (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-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The Arab and Chaldean Resource Center is organized exclusively for charitable and educational purposes within the meaning of Section 501c3 of the Internal Revenue Code including but not limited to providing Arab and Chaldean students and their allies on university campuses with a welcoming and inclusive physical space to gather engage in educational and cultural programming and access support services and resources that promote leadership academic success and civic engagement.

What it reported doing in 2025

12 Annual LSA Gala - donation for relief efforts in coordination with LSA Unified - UMD

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

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and revenue comfortably covers expenses. 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: 36
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Sustainability: 63
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 28.2%; rating input score 28
  • Program expense ratio: 49.7%; rating input score 50

Transparency & Controls

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

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 43.4%; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.14; rating input score 51; 51st 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: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • Where the money goes: 28.2% of revenue deployed · 49.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $15K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 7 of 8 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 28/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 50/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part III transfer expenses within program total did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 51/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.