Arewa Aid Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
208358602
IRS 990 coverage
2019–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Gallatin, TN, USA
Phone
6153902134
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Human Service Organizations
Affiliation
Christianity

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$465,301
Expenses
$348,881
Assets
$230,428
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Thomas Lee Hodges Jr (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Thomas Lee Hodges Jr (President): $36,000 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

OUR MISSION: In the three countries, Nigeria, Chad, and Niger, where we work, is first to provide clean water wells to the poorest, poverty-stricken areas for people who have never had access to clean water before. Our mission is also to provide health care where possible for people who have no access to health care, with an emphasis on maternity care for women and children who are the most vulnerable in these areas. A school established in 2011 in Chad is currently providing an education to 1,400 students of all ages. Our primary goal is for everyone to know Christ as Savior. Our ministry is to the whole person, physically and spiritually.

What it reported doing in 2025

CLINIC AND OTHER OPERATIONS. Our clinic in Chad treats more than 2500 people per year. We have seen the mortality of babies in this area drop from 4 or 5 stillborn and other childhood-related deaths to less than 5 per year since adding a midwife. Our clinic in Niger treats close to 5,000 patients per year. We have just added a maternity center to this clinic because of the great need, and we expect to see similar results here as in our clinic in Chad. We have also seen the cases of malnutrition fall by 30% over the last 3 years due to the nutritional food provided in a 40-foot shipping container of food

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 94% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 76
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 69
  • Sustainability: 57
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 67.7%; rating input score 68
  • Program expense ratio: 90.2%; rating input score 90
  • Fundraising efficiency: $51.7 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 0 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Fail
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Fail
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 81st 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: 25%; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.66; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 10.3%; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 2% per year; rating input score 100; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5.6% per year; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.7% per year; rating input score 100; 47th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 67.7% of revenue deployed · 90.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $315K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $36K · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 17 of 18 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2019 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 8 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 31/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 27/100.