Science for Africa Foundation

Legal name: Science for Africa Foundation SFA

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
352725269
IRS 990 coverage
2022–2025
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-N 2020
Location
Nairobi, Nairobi, Kenya
Phone
+254 705 199 199
Rating
51
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
International, Foreign Affairs, and National Security N.E.C.

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$30,003,458
Expenses
$28,812,016
Assets
$24,008,311
Liabilities
$21,008,949

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Dr Tom Kariuki (Chief Executive Officer)

Highest reported compensation

  • Dr Tom Kariuki (Chief Executive Officer): $242,272 total reported compensation
  • Evelyn Gitau (Chief Scientific Officer): $214,503 total reported compensation
  • Hannah Ngugi (Chief Financial Officer): $191,258 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To support, strengthen, and promote science and innovation in Africa.

What it reported doing in 2025

Title: Deltas II Programme Management Costs Award. These are the actual costs to manage the DELTAS II initiative. These include salaries for key programme staff to deliver programme activities meetings internal audit DELTAS community of practise and associated travel costs.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 94% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

MIXED - 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 a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 81
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 34
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 5 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 83
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Pass
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Pass
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • 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: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 4%; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.83; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.88; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 12.6% per year; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 48.6% per year; rating input score 100; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 44.4% per year; rating input score 100; 98th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 10 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 59 filed program accomplishments
  • Leadership: top reported pay $242K · 10 people listed · 5 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $1.6M reported
  • Consistency: 43 of 45 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2022 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 10 filed money-flow records
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 6 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 41/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 24/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 9/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX ForeignGrants column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 58/100.