Middle East Democracy Center

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
814800624
IRS 990 coverage
2019–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
2028044747
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Community Service Clubs

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$752,224
Expenses
$1,946,856
Assets
$1,444,133
Liabilities
$621,060

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • TESS MCENERGY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • TESS MCENERGY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $171,315 total reported compensation
  • ARWA SHOBAKI (MANAGING DIRECTOR): $116,702 total reported compensation
  • ABDALLAH ALAOUDH (SENIOR DIRECTOR): $108,727 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 middle east democracy center (medc) is a us based nonprofit and nonpartisan advocacy organization that works with the people of the middle east and north africa to free the unjustly detained and advocate for us policies that protect human rights and democracy.

What it reported doing in 2024

Advocacy and communications: raising awareness and mobilizing public support for political prisoners and democratic reform in the mena region.research: conducting and publishing analysis on human rights, governance, and democracy trends in the middle east and north africa.civil society engagement: building partnerships with local activists, ngos, and diaspora communities to strengthen grassroots movements for justice and reform.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 94% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

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 expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 83
  • Transparency & Controls: 61
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 14
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 81.4%; rating input score 81
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 19th 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: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • 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: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • 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: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -158.8%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.74; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.43; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 20.4%; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 21.2% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -11.1% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 10.9% per year; rating input score 100; 61st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 81.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.6M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $171K · 12 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 22 of 23 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2019 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 1/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 33/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 14/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 18/100.