Arghand Trust Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
205077509
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2010–2017
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2017
Location
Cambridge, MA, USA
Rating
71
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
International Relief

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$34,398
Expenses
$22,175
Assets
$42,137
Liabilities
$12,672

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SARAH P CHAYES (President)

People named in this filing

  • AMIR SOLTANI (Director)
  • BARBARA BUCHAN (Director)
  • BETTY JAMESON (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 2017. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The organization's missions are to help the people of afghanistan rebuild their social and economic structures shattered by years of war, in sustainable environmentally respectful ways, by undertaking initiatives in afghanistan to (a) expand the production of licit local crops and create value-added products from those crops for the domestic and international markets, and (b) assist local and regional developmental planning efforts.

What it reported doing in 2017

Arghand cooperative purpose is to contribute to the economic development of southern afghanistan by producing high quality, all natural skin care and certain other products from the legendary fruits of the kandahar region - thus also competing with the opium industry by expanding the market for licit crops.

Operating model

Revenue model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent revenue detail to tell how this nonprofit funds its work.
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 - A large share of total spending goes to programs and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 69
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 68
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 56.5%; rating input score 57
  • Program expense ratio: 87.7%; rating input score 88

Transparency & Controls

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

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 35.5%; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.9; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.3; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -36.8% per year; rating input score 0; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -28.2% per year; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -19.7% per year; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 56.5% of revenue deployed · 87.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $19K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 14 people listed
  • Consistency: 7 of 7 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2010 to 2017
  • 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 57/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 15/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.