Chand Foundation Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 611800442
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2023–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025, Form 990-N 2022
- Location
- Stockbridge, GA, USA
- Phone
- 4702963001
- Rating
- 53
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Public Foundations
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $217,637
- Expenses
- $111,125
- Assets
- $792,665
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
5 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- SAMUEL R CHAND (PRESIDENT)
- BRENDA C CHAND (VICE PRESIDENT)
People named in this filing
- SAMUEL R CHAND (PRESIDENT)
- BRENDA C CHAND (VICE PRESIDENT)
- RACHEL MARLER (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. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The purpose, objectives, and powers of chand foundation is toorganize and establish an intercultural, multi-racial, non-profitfoundation to serve the under-resourced globally by providingresources, education, personnel, and ongoing support for thosebeing served; to have the right to engage in all forms of educationaland benevolent work, all for the purpose of providing a caring andbenevolent entity.
What it reported doing in 2025
To provide an education for several hundred k-7 children.these were the children of rural farmers in the country of india. Thisincluded teacher/staff salaries, student transportation, all supplies including uniforms, and a meal each day. Additionally, we consistently provide support to the community in the area of the school to offer certified sewing classes for destitute women, complete with machinery to start their own textile business; regular distribution of dry food and supplies to widows; and vaccine/medical clinics to all in the village.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 82% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.
The verdict
MIXED - 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 voting board members are independent.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 59
- Transparency & Controls: 67
- Accountability: 12
- Sustainability: 84
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 52.2%; rating input score 52
- Program expense ratio: 90%; rating input score 90
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 83.3%; rating input score 83; 2nd 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: 0%; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- 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: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 48.9%; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 7.13; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 35.1% per year; rating input score 100; 91st percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -70.2% per year; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 5.4% per year; rating input score 100; 46th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 52.2% of revenue deployed · 90% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 0 of 5 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $100K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
- Consistency: 16 of 18 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
- Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
- Filing history: 3 filing years from 2023 to 2025
- 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.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 52/100.
- High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 8 of 8 not reported.
- High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.