Panah Charity Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
272637286
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2010
Location
Fremont, CA, USA
Phone
5107922629
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
International Relief

Reported finances

Revenue
$706,082
Expenses
$258,041
Assets
$3,860,302
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Durrana Nejat (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Mirza Mohammad (Operating Manager and Supervisor in Afghanistan): $3,323 total reported compensation
  • Masihullah Mehry (Key Employee in Afghanistan): $2,124 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Panah is a CHARITABLE non-profit foundation with active 501c (3) status. This charity was formed in 2010 to help poor and homeless families by providing various humanitarian services. Panah Charity's mission is to provide aid via different programs to poverty-stricken families and individuals in Afghanistan. Short descriptions of Panah Charity's programs are as followings: Building homes for homeless families, building class rooms for homeless children, helping needy families to become self sufficient, building water wells, sponsoring very poor widows and orphans, providing humanitarian aid, saving children from child labor, helping very poor individuals with their medical expenses, . . . and more.

What it reported doing in 2024

Panah Charity provided basic food supplies packages to 1200 poor and homeless families in Afghanistan throughout 2024. They were families with young children living below the poverty level & majority of children were orphans. Panah Charity provided flour, rice, cooking oil, tea, sugar, beans, & lentil. Distribution of 1200 food packages fed 7500 individuals for a month for a total cost of $78,008 US dollars. This includes supporting families in winter season as well. Total allocation cost of transportation to distribution sites, banners, and some small miscellaneous expenses included.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 80% 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 - 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 the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 57
  • Transparency & Controls: 72
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 90
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 47.1%; rating input score 47
  • Program expense ratio: 92%; rating input score 92
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 19th 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: 99.4%; rating input score 99; 49th 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: 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: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 63.5%; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 14.96; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 2.1%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 2.1% per year; rating input score 100; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 9.2% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 21.9% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 47.1% of revenue deployed · 92% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 3 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 7 filed program accomplishments · $237K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $3K · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 24 of 25 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2012 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 47/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 8 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 58/100.