Nepal Cleft & Burn Center Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
204731389
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Salt Lake City, UT, USA
Rating
59
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
International Relief

Reported finances

Revenue
$253,107
Expenses
$14,984
Assets
$1,781,869
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JIM A WEBBER (DIRECTOR AND PRESIDENT)
  • EILEEN CSONTOS (DIRECTOR AND VICE PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • JIM A WEBBER (DIRECTOR AND PRESIDENT)
  • EILEEN CSONTOS (DIRECTOR AND VICE PRESIDENT)
  • SCOTT CORLEW (DIRECTOR)

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

The primary purpose of the organization is to build & equip teaching hospitals in Nepal for reconstructive surgery to serve the poorest of Nepal through a sustainable healthcare infrastructure. The hospitals will also train medical students so they can help needy people in Nepal.

What it reported doing in 2024

The Organization raised funds to build a hospital in Kathmandu Valley, Nepal, completed in 2014. They also raised funds to equip the hospital. The construction of the 1st hospital was such a success for the community that the Organization decided to raise funds in order to construct a 2nd hospital in another area of Nepal. It sees the need for this new Hospital. They are in the planning stages for the 2nd Hospital and are working on putting in place controls for the expenditure of funds toward the 2nd Hospital. The architectural plans are finalized. They hope to break ground on the 2nd hospital construction in late 2025. The Organization paid for needed medical equipment including specialized surgical blades and cutting devices for the hospital in Kathmandu Valley, Nepal.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 72% 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

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and 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: 15
  • Transparency & Controls: 86
  • Accountability: 88
  • Sustainability: 93
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 1.9%; rating input score 2
  • Program expense ratio: 20.1%; rating input score 20
  • Fundraising efficiency: $23.31 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 83.3%; rating input score 83; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • 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: 5 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 71
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 94.1%; rating input score 99; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 118.92; rating input score 99; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 0.5% per year; rating input score 100; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5.8% per year; rating input score 100; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 14% per year; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 1.9% of revenue deployed · 20.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $3K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 15 of 17 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2013 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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 2/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 20/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grants require schedule f did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.