Manas Development Group
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 510546095
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Washington, DC, USA
- Phone
- 2026758330
- Rating
- 65
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- International Economic Development
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $1,123,252
- Expenses
- $678,928
- Assets
- $1,590,389
- Liabilities
- $609,163
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
5 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- SAMUEL LAM (PRESIDENT)
Highest reported compensation
- SAMUEL LAM (PRESIDENT): $241,516 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 group provides business development assistance to entrepreneurs and small business persons in developing countries. Also, the group assisted companies to execute in emerging markets to further economic development projects and to facilitate sustainable development directly among the poor and marginalized individuals in middle east, northern africa, and asia. Encourages entrepreneurship and cross-cultural exchange among small business persons.
What it reported doing in 2024
Specifically, the group promotes economic development projects to facilitate broad economic development in asia, north africa, and the middle east.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 92% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 76% for direct work, and 24% for 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: 62
- Transparency & Controls: 69
- Accountability: 74
- Sustainability: 71
- Growth: 20
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 56.8%; rating input score 57
- Program expense ratio: 91%; rating input score 91
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- 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; 76th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: Fail
- Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 39.6%; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.34; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.38; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 4.9%; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -6.6% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -1.2% per year; rating input score 0; 11th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 13.3% per year; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 56.8% of revenue deployed · 91% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $618K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $242K · 5 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 27 of 28 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, executive pay, and related organizations
- Filing history: 13 filing years from 2010 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Related organizations: 3 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.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 57/100.
- Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 7 of 8 not reported.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 20/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 53/100.