Sifat

Legal name: Southern Institute for Appropriate Techn Ology

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
630776048
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Lineville, AL, United States
Phone
(256) 396-2015
Rating
68
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Affiliation
Christianity

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,579,347
Expenses
$1,469,820
Assets
$2,198,679
Liabilities
$16,038

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • TOM CORSON (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • TOM CORSON (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $63,547 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

SIFAT provides training in community development in hard places so Christian leaders learn self-help skills for basic human needs (including physical and spiritual needs), with projects flowing among people who follow Christ and with opportunities for others to learn from and serve alongside communities with scarce resources.

What it reported doing in 2024

Costa rica - the purpose of sifat's costa rican campus is to make training in community development and appropriate techonlogies for basic human needs available. Our target audience is church and community leaders of very poor areas in latin america and beyond who cannot get visas to our training center in the u.s. Sifat costa rica demonstrates solutions to basic human needs such as more nutritious food, clean water, housing, health, micro enterprises and more. We not only teach community development using appropriate technologies as tools, but we are doing community development in the community of which we are a part. We can take our students from impoverished countries on a walk through our costa rican neighborhood and introduce them to costa ricans who incorporate the principles we teach on their two-to-three acre farms with thier basic needs met. They can see as well as hear our classes, and then practice these technologies until they are equipped to go home and teach their own people. Also a big part is learning to work together as a community for the benefit of all.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 93% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% 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

SUPPORTED - 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: 78
  • Transparency & Controls: 51
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 57
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 83.6%; rating input score 84
  • Program expense ratio: 76.8%; rating input score 77
  • Fundraising efficiency: $14.19 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • 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: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • 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: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 6.9%; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.5; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.3%; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -4.8% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -1.4% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8.2% per year; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 2 operating locations identified
  • Where the money goes: 83.6% of revenue deployed · 76.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $1.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $64K · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 23 of 25 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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 scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 49/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 55/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 56/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Fund balance restriction sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 55/100.