Vicente Ferrer Foundation USA Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
462351926
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-N 2013
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
2027985269
Rating
66
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$812,609
Expenses
$450,700
Assets
$884,672
Liabilities
$232,519

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SAGARA MURTHY (PRESIDENT)
  • USHREE ROY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • USHREE ROY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $90,000 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Empowering rural communities by building strategic partnerships with corporate, individual, and institutional stakeholders in the united states to support sustainable, community driven development initiatives.

What it reported doing in 2025

Grant support: vff USA provides grants to implementing partners in india to support comprehensive development programs. Grant funding advances rural infrastructure, healthcare, education, sustainable agriculture, and livelihood development, and other initiatives that improve the well being of rural communities, with a particular focus on women, children and persons with disabilities. During the year, grant funding supported initiatives that enabled academically deserving students from rural communities to pursue higher education and stem careers, strengthened healthcare infrastructure to improve access to quality healthcare services, expanded livelihood opportunities through women's income generation and microenterprise initiatives, and improved educational facilities and resources to create better learning environments for children.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 77% 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: 42
  • Transparency & Controls: 77
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 65
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 32.9%; rating input score 33
  • Program expense ratio: 59.4%; rating input score 59
  • Fundraising efficiency: $9.42 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 78th 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; 64th 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: 44.5%; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.96; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.26; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 20%; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 4.2% per year; rating input score 100; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.6% per year; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 23.5% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 32.9% of revenue deployed · 59.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $268K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $90K · 9 people listed
  • Consistency: 26 of 26 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2015 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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 33/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 7 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 59/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 33/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 16/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 21/100.