Small Enterprise Assistance Funds

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
133535334
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
2027378463
Rating
54
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Fund Raising and Fund Distribution

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$8,480,601
Expenses
$9,824,385
Assets
$39,225,122
Liabilities
$34,608,864

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

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • HUBERTUS VAN DER VAART (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • HUBERTUS VAN DER VAART (PRESIDENT): $338,930 total reported compensation
  • ROBERT VODICKA (TREASURER): $221,833 total reported compensation
  • PETER RIGHI (CEED GLOBAL DIRECTOR): $220,348 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Seaf's mission is improving lives and communities through entrepreneur-led development.

What it reported doing in 2024

India agribusiness fund--seaf india agribusiness international fund (the "int'l fund") was incorporated on 05 june 2009 and domiciled in mauritius. In 2013, the international fund had its final closing with total commitments of $26,550,000 from seven members. The investment manager of the int'l fund is seaf investment management company (simc), a private company limited by shares incorporated under the laws of mauritius on june 5, 2009 and is 100% owned by seaf. The seaf india agribusiness fund (the domestic fund) is structured as a scheme of the seaf india investment trust, a contributory trust under the provisions of the trusts act, 1882, wherein il&fs trust company limited, a company incorporated under the companies act (1956), is acting as the trustee of the trust. The trustee has appointed the domestic fund's investment manager to be seaf india investment advisors private limited (iac), an indian entity established by seaf.the small enterprise assistance funds on october 1st, 2019 was awarded a $999,966 grant from the u.s department of state to promote the fintech sector in morocco and tunisia by training the next generation of entrepreneurs and innovators. The project is a 3 year program which includes four objectives: 1) moroccan and tunisian start-ups increase their expertise in management and scaling up 2) moroccan and tunisian start-ups gain access to markets through matchmaking and partnerships with u.s markets. 3) moroccan and tunisian start-ups gain access to funding and investors by engaging the u.s private sector as well as mena private corporations and investors to potentially address areas for improvement to enhance the position of moroccan and tunisian fintech sectors for investment 4) u.s and local private sectors gain access to talent of moroccan and tunisian start-ups using academic alumni associations.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 95% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

The verdict

MIXED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 60
  • Transparency & Controls: 48
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 32
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 71.6%; rating input score 72
  • Program expense ratio: 61.4%; rating input score 61
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • 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: 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: 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: 63.6%; rating input score 64; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -15.8%; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.99; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.88; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 9.6%; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -12% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -11.9% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -3.4% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 71.6% of revenue deployed · 61.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 11 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $6M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $339K · 14 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 3 contractors listed · $600K reported
  • Consistency: 30 of 31 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2015 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 14 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 8 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 9/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 8/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 31/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.