Lrbt USA
Legal name: Lrbt USA Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 200181156
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2020–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2019, Form 990-N 2016
- Location
- Watertown, NY, US
- Phone
- +1 315.788.6070
- Rating
- 77
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- International Relief
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $1,158,752
- Expenses
- $971,344
- Assets
- $2,191,891
- Liabilities
- $40,500
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
4 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- NOAMAN SANNI (PRESIDENT)
People named in this filing
- JAAP WESTRIK (DIRECTOR)
- LAILA WAHEED (DIRECTOR)
- NOAMAN SANNI (PRESIDENT)
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 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
No man, woman, or child should go blind just because they cannot access or afford the treatment.
What it reported doing in 2024
Lrbt USA is the us fundraising arm of layton rahmatullah benevolent trust (lrbt), which operates a nationwide network of 20 hospitals and 55 eye care centers in pakistan. Lrbt alone treats 36% of the country's total eye patients and, to date, has provided free treatment to more than 61 million patients.founded by graham layton and zaka rahmatullah, lrbt was established as a benevolent trust with a vision to provide free eye care to poor and underprivileged citizens across pakistan, ensuring that no one goes blind due to lack of affordability.lrbt USA works closely with the team in pakistan to raise awareness, build campaigns, and grow financial support, helping meet the direct needs of lrbt's eye hospitals and the poor and needy patients they serve.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 94% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 81% 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. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 76
- Transparency & Controls: 71
- Accountability: 82
- Sustainability: 70
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 80.4%; rating input score 80
- Program expense ratio: 95.9%; rating input score 96
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 22nd 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: 93.5%; rating input score 94; 41st 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 4 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 57
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- 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: Fail
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 16.2%; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.26; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 13.3% per year; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 30% per year; rating input score 100; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 43% per year; rating input score 100; 95th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 3 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
- Where the money goes: 80.4% of revenue deployed · 95.9% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 4 of 4 board members independent · 4 of 7 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $932K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
- Consistency: 26 of 28 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
- Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and grants
- Filing history: 5 filing years from 2020 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
- 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: Foreign activity oversight: 8 of 8 not reported.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.