SurfAid

Legal name: Surfaid International USA

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
141850033
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Official website data refreshed
Jul 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
San Francisco, CA, United States
Phone
+613 8326 7205
Rating
65
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Private Grantmaking Foundations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$265,889
Expenses
$229,953
Assets
$182,379
Liabilities
$34,331

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

People named in this filing

  • STUART GASNER (CHAIRMAN)
  • MARK SEASHOLES (TREASURER)
  • PAUL RIEHLE (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

Improve the health, well-being and resilience of remote communities connected to us through surfing

What it reported doing in 2024

Surfaid is a non profit (NGO) humanitarian aid organization with offices in the USA, indonesia, australia and new zealand. Its mission is to improve health, well being, sustainability, and self reliance of people living in isolated regions connected to us through surfing, including their ability to respond to environmental conditions caused by climate change. Surfaid raises funds to support education, economic development, sustainability, and human health related services provided free of charge to indigenous peoples living close to surfing areas in developing nations.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 63% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 66% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. 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: 50
  • Transparency & Controls: 74
  • Accountability: 94
  • Sustainability: 51
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 50.6%; rating input score 51
  • Program expense ratio: 58.5%; rating input score 59
  • Fundraising efficiency: $3.04 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 80th 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: 6 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 86
    • 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: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 13.5%; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.79; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.19; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -0.2% per year; rating input score 0; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -4.8% per year; rating input score 0; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 2.1% per year; rating input score 100; 34th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 6 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 6 operating locations identified
  • Where the money goes: 50.6% of revenue deployed · 58.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 6 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $135K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 26 of 27 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 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.
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 51/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 7 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 59/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 14/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Audit committee oversight not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 35/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 20/100.