Students for a Free Tibet Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
134008917
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
New York, NY, USA
Phone
2123580071
Rating
48
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Performing Arts Organizations

Reported finances

Revenue
$978,294
Expenses
$569,390
Assets
$435,265
Liabilities
$5,043

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

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

People named in this filing

  • PEMA DOMA (EXECTUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • TENZIN CHOEYING (DIRECTOR)
  • SONAMTSO K (BOARD MEMBER)

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

See schedule o

What it reported doing in 2024

Environment: sft continued to put pressure on foreign companies exploiting tibets natural resoursces. Sft coordinated events to raise awareness about tibets fragile environment including the chinese governments displacement of tibetan nomads. Sft coordinated awareness raising events about the impact of climate change in tibet and the chinese governments destructive environmental policies to coincide with the cop 15 un climate change conference in copenhagen.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 95% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 88% 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 - Most voting board members are independent and revenue comfortably covers expenses. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 40
  • Transparency & Controls: 50
  • Accountability: 62
  • Sustainability: 70
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 31.5%; rating input score 31
  • Program expense ratio: 53.9%; rating input score 54
  • Fundraising efficiency: $12.98 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 80%; rating input score 80; 0th 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: 8.1%; rating input score 8; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 85.7%; rating input score 86; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 41.8%; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.76; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -1.6% per year; rating input score 0; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -0.1% per year; rating input score 0; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 2.8% per year; rating input score 100; 29th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 31.5% of revenue deployed · 53.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 7 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $307K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 7 people listed
  • Consistency: 28 of 30 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 31/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 8 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 54/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 8/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 46/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 34/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.