Telugu Association of North America Inco

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
363060732
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Novi, MI, USA
Phone
7033715029
Rating
62
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Cultural, Ethnic Awareness

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,056,008
Expenses
$6,417,232
Assets
$6,338,720
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Naren Kodali (President)
  • Niranjan Srungavarapu (Past President)

People named in this filing

  • Naren Kodali (President)
  • Srinivas Lavu (Executive Vice)
  • Sunil Pantra (Secretary)

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

Tana foundation - the objective of foundation are to help telugu speaking people:1. By providing relief and help in case of natural calamities. 2. By promotingdevelopmental projects to improve education, health and quality of lifesuch assistance includes funding orphanages, educational scholarships, eye clinicsand surgeries, flood relief, building of schools.

What it reported doing in 2024

Telugu (tana) foundation - the objective of the foundation are to help telugu speaking people:1.by providing relief and help in case of natural calamities.2. By promoting developmental projects to improve education, health and quality of life.3. By arranging financial assistance to young adults and youth particularly living in north america. Support for local and regional cultural and language programs and concerts in north america. Special events - womens day, concerts and other events. See schedule o

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 92% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - Most voting board members are independent and program spending has grown recently. A relatively small share of total spending goes to programs and the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 59
  • Transparency & Controls: 47
  • Accountability: 88
  • Sustainability: 33
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 82.4%; rating input score 82
  • Program expense ratio: 38.8%; rating input score 39
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 83.3%; rating input score 83; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 0 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Limited
    • Requires narrative reports: Limited
    • Conducts field audits: Limited
    • May suspend future funding: Limited
    • Requires financial reports: Limited
    • Conducts site visits: Limited
    • Requires grant agreements: Limited
    • May require repayment: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 0%; rating input score 0; 6th 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: 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: -110%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.99; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 3% per year; rating input score 100; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.8% per year; rating input score 100; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6.3% per year; rating input score 100; 41st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 82.4% of revenue deployed · 38.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 14 of 14 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 14 people listed
  • Consistency: 16 of 18 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 39/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 1/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 36/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.