Lau Health Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
272049290
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2013
Location
New York, NY, USA
Phone
2122034333
Rating
71
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Reported finances

Revenue
$280,828
Expenses
$553,011
Assets
$413,243
Liabilities
$29,200

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DR CHAOUKI ABDALLAH (PRESIDENT & CHAIRIMAN)
  • DR MICHEL MAWAD (FORMER PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • DR MICHEL MAWAD (FORMER PRESIDENT): $1,728,510 total reported compensation
  • MR CHARLES ABOU RJEILY (TREASURER & SECRETARY): $719,414 total reported compensation
  • DR CHAOUKI ABDALLAH (PRESIDENT & CHAIRIMAN): $344,183 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The purpose for which the corporation is formed is to accept contributions (including monetary contributions and contributions of medical equipment) to support the medical school of lebanese american university, a New York not-for-profit corporation. Such contributions are to be used specifically to support medical and health education programs conducted or operated by the medical school.

What it reported doing in 2024

Support for medical & clinical education. Lau health foundation is a supporting organization of lebanese american university. The primary purpose of lau health foundation is fundraising in support of medical & clinical education.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 92% 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

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 88
  • Transparency & Controls: 62
  • Accountability: 57
  • Sustainability: 14
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 95.9%; rating input score 96
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • 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; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 66.7%; rating input score 67; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 44
    • 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: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -96.9%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.75; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.07; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 130.7%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 17.5% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 13.9% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 14.5% per year; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 95.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 2 of 3 board members independent · 4 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $530K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $1.7M · 6 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 20 of 20 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2014 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 2 filed related-organization links
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 7 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 2/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 33/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 1/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 29/100.