Friends of Aravind Inc Dba Aravind Eye Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
383532410
IRS 990 coverage
2008–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
New York, NY, USA
Phone
9174124742
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,650,133
Expenses
$1,381,010
Assets
$10,147,211
Liabilities
$205,912

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

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DR R CHRISTINE MELTON (President)
  • DR SACHIN GUPTA (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Donna Campbell (Executive Dir.): $22,185 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The purpose of the corporation is to engage in such activity as may be necessary, appropriate or otherwise helpful to support, provide assistance to or perform functions of aravind eye hospital and postgraduate institute of ophthamology headquarters in madrai, india (aravind eye hospital). The goal of aravind eye hospital is to eliminate needless blindness. Aravind eye foundation will support aravind eye hospital in working toward that goal:(a) by promoting aravind eye hospital and communicating its activities throughout the world;(b) by supporting aravind eye hospital directly in service delivery, human resource and organization development, securing equipment and supplies, locating volunteers who meet identified needs and metting other requests of the aravind eye hospital; and(c) by assisting in the spread of "the aravind model" to other places in india and the world.

What it reported doing in 2025

Spectacles for ScholarsTo reduce visual impairment due to uncorrected refractive error among school-going children in the service area. To increase access to child eye health by providing comprehensive refractive error services to school-going children. To improve the quality of life. To develop an enabling environment to ensure the delivery and sustainability of quality refractive error services.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 88% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 97% of its reported program spending out as grants.

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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 66
  • Transparency & Controls: 77
  • Accountability: 87
  • Sustainability: 87
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 42.6%; rating input score 43
  • Program expense ratio: 94.7%; rating input score 95
  • Fundraising efficiency: $171.1 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Limited
    • Conducts field audits: Limited
    • May suspend future funding: Limited
    • Requires financial reports: Limited
    • Conducts site visits: Limited
    • Requires grant agreements: Limited
    • May require repayment: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 86.7%; rating input score 87; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: 62.2%; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 7.35; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 1.6%; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 0% per year; rating input score 100; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8.8% per year; rating input score 100; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 13.2% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 42.6% of revenue deployed · 94.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 15 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 8 filed program accomplishments · $1.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $22K · 15 people listed
  • Consistency: 25 of 25 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2008 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 43/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.