Shai Fund Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
471683585
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Murfreesboro, TN, USA
Phone
6156697002
Rating
61
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
International Migration, Refugee Issues

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,711,027
Expenses
$1,539,814
Assets
$2,601,188
Liabilities
$97,299

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

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CHARMAINE HEDDING (PRESIDENT, E)

Highest reported compensation

  • CHARMAINE HEDDING (PRESIDENT, E): $181,583 total reported compensation
  • DARYL HEDDING (TREASURER): $113,625 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Shai fund brings peace, safety, and stability to vulnerable communities living in conflict and crisis, offering them hope and the opportunity to rebuild their lives.

What it reported doing in 2024

Shai fund worked in 11 countries including afghanistan, armenia, ethiopia, iraq, israel, myanmar, somalia, sudan, syria, turkey and the united states of america in 2024 with humanitarian programming that assisted a total of 42,519 people. The humanitarian aid included assistance given in training and education for 78 persons, medical for 21,515 persons, relief with food and non-food items for 208 persons, shelter for 204 persons, livelihood and job creation for 167 persons, protection programs for 57 persons, combatting forced/child marriages for 2 persons, culture and education programs for 12,203 persons, food security for 12,941 persons and water and sanitation hygiene (wash) for 4,485 persons.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 97% 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 - Most filed governance safeguards are in place and program spending has grown recently. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and a relatively small share of voting board members are independent.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 59
  • Transparency & Controls: 56
  • Accountability: 66
  • Sustainability: 55
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 61.2%; rating input score 61
  • Program expense ratio: 66.5%; rating input score 67
  • Fundraising efficiency: $7.44 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 87.5%; rating input score 88; 3rd 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: 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: 99.6%; rating input score 100; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 50%; rating input score 50; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 10%; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.69; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.04; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 19.2%; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 26.7% per year; rating input score 100; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 24.3% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 26% per year; rating input score 100; 88th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 61.2% of revenue deployed · 66.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 2 of 4 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $182K · 4 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 31 of 33 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2016 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 7 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 50/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 8 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 28/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Form 990 shared with the board not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 59/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 16/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule G fundraiser detail did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 56/100.