International Commission for Dalit Rights Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
262403135
IRS 990 coverage
2021–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2024, Form 990-N 2019
Location
Fairfax, VA, USA
Phone
7032890705
Rating
42
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Human Service Organizations

Reported finances

Revenue
$257,608
Expenses
$257,608
Assets
$-54,888
Liabilities
$-54,888

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

Leadership & pay

1 person listed

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

Overview

Mission

Our mission is to provide affordable and pro-bono immigration-related legal services to underserved indigent and immigrant communities especially those with limited access to reliable and cost-effective legal support. ICDR also frames this work as part of a broader human rights and public service mission advocating for the civil and human rights of vulnerable and underserved populations locally in the DMV area across the United States in South Asia and globally.

What it reported doing in 2025

Dalit Justice Initiative aims to establish enduring legal capacity for lawyers and legal actors from Dalit and marginalized communities throughout South Asia. In addition to providing training the initiative enhances institutional infrastructure and integrates criminal and civil litigation expertise within partner organizations. Structured as an investment in human capital and regional legal networks the initiative focuses on recruiting training and retaining legal professionals to guarantee ongoing access to justice. These evidence-based and community-centered strategies empower organizations to sustainably support communities even after the initiative concludes.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 90% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

MIXED - Most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 21
  • Transparency & Controls: 50
  • Accountability: 79
  • Sustainability: 17
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 23.1%; rating input score 23
  • Program expense ratio: 23.1%; rating input score 23
  • Fundraising efficiency: $1.23 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 66.7%; rating input score 67; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 0%; rating input score 0; 20th 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: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 0%; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: -0.21; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 48.5%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -16.5% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6.2% per year; rating input score 100; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -45.3% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 23.1% of revenue deployed · 23.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $320K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $125K · 1 people listed
  • Consistency: 32 of 44 current checks pass · 12 findings to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2021 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 23/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 23/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 7/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 35/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 4/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX CompCurrentOfficersDirectors column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX DepreciationDepletion column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX FeesForServicesLegal column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX GrantsToDomesticIndividuals column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Insurance column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX OtherSalariesAndWages column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX PaymentsToAffiliates column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX PayrollTaxes column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule M noncash within contributions did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.