Epek International Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
844151140
IRS 990 coverage
2021–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2020
Location
Glen Oaks, NY, USA
Phone
9172133832
Rating
44
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Human Service Organizations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$870,739
Expenses
$866,219
Assets
$43,057
Liabilities
$12,888

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

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ABDUL W SAHIBUDIN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • ABDUL W SAHIBUDIN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $124,623 total reported compensation
  • Seth Tallon Gardner (BOARD MEMBER/PROJECT DIRCTOR): $9,000 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To serve the most marginalized communities in Afghanistan to see hope and dignity restored through education, health, and economic empowerment.

What it reported doing in 2025

Clean Drinking Water Project: EPEK International is committed to helping refugee and internally displaced children have access to education and a brighter future. Through our education programs, we provide children with opportunities to learn, grow, and develop the skills they need for their future. For many refugee families, education can feel out of reach because of displacement, financial hardship, and difficult living conditions. Our goal is to create a safe and supportive learning environment where children can continue their education, regain confidence, and have hope for a better future. We are thankful for the opportunity to walk alongside these children and their families, helping restore hope and dignity through education.

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 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

MIXED - The strongest available result is that a large share of total spending goes to programs. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and a relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 53
  • Transparency & Controls: 51
  • Accountability: 23
  • Sustainability: 21
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 59.4%; rating input score 59
  • Program expense ratio: 59.7%; rating input score 60
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 10th 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: 0%; rating input score 0; 15th 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; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 56
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 0.5%; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.05; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.3; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 15.4%; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -2.1% per year; rating input score 0; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 13.4% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -31.6% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 59.4% of revenue deployed · 59.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 6 board members independent · 5 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $517K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $125K · 7 people listed
  • Consistency: 21 of 22 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2021 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • 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 — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 59/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 8 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 32/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 3/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 19/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 24/100.