Yazda

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
471722806
IRS 990 coverage
2019–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2014
Location
Lincoln, NE, USA
Phone
8322989584
Rating
71
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
International Relief

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,161,398
Expenses
$1,074,945
Assets
$357,688
Liabilities
$12,100

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Haider Elias (Board President & Treasurer)
  • Hadi Pir (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Ahmed Burjus (Deputy Director): $48,000 total reported compensation
  • Natia Navrouov (Legal Advocacy Director): $30,000 total reported compensation
  • Haider Elias (Board President & Treasurer): $12,000 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To support the Yazidi Community after the genocidal campaign in August 2014 . The goal is to help thousands of displaced families and individuals that have been uprooted from their homeland. Yazda provides humanitarian aid, psych, and social assistance and medical clinic.

What it reported doing in 2024

(Code: IOM23) Return of Displaced in Nineveh - Yazda joined forces with the International Organization for Migration (IOM) to support the return and reintegration of displaced people in Nineveh Plains and West Nineveh. This USAID-funded project utilizes a multi-pronged approach for a sustainable return, encompassing: * Livelihood and Economic Independence: Helping returnees establish themselves financially. * Access to Services: Ensuring returnees have the resources they need. * Social Cohesion: Fostering a sense of community among returnees. * Psychosocial Support (PSS): Providing mental health services to those who have experienced trauma. * Diaspora Engagement: Connecting returnees with Yazidi communities abroad. * Administrative Support: Assisting returnees with navigating bureaucracy. To oversee these activities, Yazda opens a new office in Sinune, focusing on large collective villages north of Sinjar and Sinjar City itself. Mental Health Services: Two Psychosocial Support Therapists are hired in Sinune to begin case management and provide support sessions in 2021. Livelihood Support: Thirteen locations are chosen for livelihood support, including nine villages on the north side (Khanasor, Sinune, Dugre, Duhola, Borek, Gubhal, Zorava, Hardan) and three on the south side (Sinjar City, Sulagh, Wardiya, Bashiqa, Bahzani). Yazda aims to establish 90 small businesses within two years and offer vocational training to select communities. Education Support: Recognizing the importance of education, Yazda assesses vulnerable schools and allocates monthly stipends for teachers and school supplies to eight schools since December 2018. Community Engagement: Yazda collaborates with six youth groups whose goals align with the project's objectives. These groups receive funding for training and capacity building in exchange for support with information gathering, community outreach, and promoting safe return through advocacy and social media. Yazidi Survivor Network A separate initiative, the Yazidi Survivor Network (YSN), funded by the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs, empowers survivors of the ISIS Genocide. YSN provides a platform for survivors to share their experiences, advocate for justice and human rights, and fight for essential programs and services.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 76% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 88% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most filed governance safeguards are in place. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 81
  • Transparency & Controls: 57
  • Accountability: 73
  • Sustainability: 44
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 87.9%; rating input score 88
  • Program expense ratio: 94.9%; rating input score 95
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Pass
    • Conducts site visits: Pass
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 63.6%; rating input score 64; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 62.5%; rating input score 62; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 7.4%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.33; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 3.3%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 7.9% per year; rating input score 100; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.2% per year; rating input score 100; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 32.6% per year; rating input score 100; 92nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 87.9% of revenue deployed · 94.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 8 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 5 filed program accomplishments · $1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $48K · 11 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 27 of 28 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes foreign activity and executive pay
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2019 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 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.

  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 5 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 16/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 56/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 57/100.