Society of International Business Fellows Ltd

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
581560888
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Atlanta, GA, USA
Phone
4703781156
Rating
38
Verdict
REVIEW
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$4,254,458
Expenses
$4,206,280
Assets
$4,376,422
Liabilities
$1,951,770

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

Leadership & pay

36 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Nancy Haselden (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Nancy Haselden (Executive Director): $191,621 total reported compensation
  • Shannon Williams (Director of Programs): $139,284 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The society of international business fellows (sibf) connects, engages, and inspires global leaders to accelerate professional and personal success through lifelong learning and trusted relationships. The society offers access to global networks where members connect for business, community, and friendship through the sibf leadership academy initiative in central eurasia, south east asia, the middle east, and north america. In addition the society offers high-level executive education programs and insights from business luminary speakers; and unique cultural opportunities for both members and their families.

What it reported doing in 2025

SIBF NORTH AMERICAN LEADERSHIP ALLIANCE (NALA) An intensive, five-day immersion program designed to expand your impact - professionally and personally. It brings together leaders from Canada, Mexico, and the United States to elevate their leadership skills, develop close working and personal relationships, and expand their strategic networks geographically and across specializations, industries, and sectors.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 80% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
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

REVIEW - Most voting board members are independent and revenue has grown recently. 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: 44
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 32
  • Growth: 60

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: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Grant itemization coverage: Scored; rating input score 0
  • 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: 8 of 8 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: 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: 1.1%; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.04; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.45; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 7.9%; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 4.5% per year; rating input score 100; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7.1% per year; rating input score 100; 45th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 34 of 34 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments
  • Leadership: top reported pay $192K · 36 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $104K reported
  • Consistency: 12 of 13 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2011 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 31/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 35/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 18/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 41/100.