Sewa International Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
200638718
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Sugar Land, TX, USA
Phone
2812584797
Rating
83
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Human Service Organizations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$8,225,401
Expenses
$6,859,173
Assets
$29,482,262
Liabilities
$1,204,247

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

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Syam Kosigi (Vice President)
  • Swadesh Katoch (Vice President)
  • Sandeep Khadkekar (Vice President)
  • Ashwani Garg (Vice President)
  • Arun Kankani (Vice President)
  • Anil Deshpande (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • Ajay Singhal (Director)
  • Dr Suresh Jain (Chairman)
  • Sarojini Gupta (Director)

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

The organization's objective is to serve humanity in distress, aid local communities, and promote volunteerism in pursuit of its vision of a world of equality where everyone is happy, enjoying good health, and living in harmony with nature.

What it reported doing in 2024

Community Service and Emergency Response : Disaster Relief and Rehabilitation-The organization executes rescue and relief activities immediately after a disaster and supports rehabilitation projects from the stress caused by natural disasters such as floods, landslides, earthquakes, hurricanes, and forest fires that devastate humanity, animals and infrastructure. Family Services - It includes emergency support services to needy families including home health services, grief counseling, legal services, and poverty alleviation initiatives, health and wellness such as stop diabetes movement and awareness and education.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 50% for direct work, and 50% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and some filed totals do not add up.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 84
  • Transparency & Controls: 70
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 77
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 79.1%; rating input score 79
  • Program expense ratio: 90.4%; rating input score 90
  • Fundraising efficiency: $327.72 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90%; rating input score 90; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • 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: 96.9%; rating input score 97; 32nd 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: 7 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 16.6%; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.3; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.04; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 11.1% per year; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 11.8% per year; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 17.4% per year; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 79.1% of revenue deployed · 90.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 7 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 5 filed program accomplishments · $6.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 15 people listed
  • Consistency: 36 of 38 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and grants
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2012 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 3 filed related-organization links
  • 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: Foreign activity oversight: 8 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.