Susila Dharma International Association

Legal name: Susila Dharma International Assoc Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
980156249
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Greenfield Park, QC, Canada
Phone
+1 450 761 0592
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Health - General and Rehabilitative N.E.C.
Affiliation
Buddhism

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$375,533
Expenses
$324,806
Assets
$1,955,181
Liabilities
$16,116

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • VIRGINIA THOMAS (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • VIRGINIA THOMAS (Executive Director): $14,000 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

We believe that by working together in an atmosphere of mutual respect we can achieve positive social, environmental and economic change that benefits our world. provide communication and information-sharing services to our members. SDIA promotes awareness of key global issues such as gender equality, child rights, environmental sustainability and innovative and effective development practices. To improve the ability of our members to implement projects, we mentor and engage local trainers to assist with needs assessments, fundraising and project management, monitoring and evaluation. We facilitate specific training events on good practices in the fields of health, education, community development and environmentally sustainable practices.

What it reported doing in 2024

In 2024, SDIA distributed $$172,628 Direct grants to projects in: Australia (Dharma Care), Colombia (Asociacion Colectivo Melao, Fundacion Amanecer) Democratic Republic of Congo (SD Congo), Asia (Anisha), Indonesia (BCU, Borneo Football Intl, SD Indonesia, YTS, YUM) Mexico(Usaha Mulia Abadi), Sierra Leona (Fundacion Mila 91) South Africa (I protect me) and Ukraine (Emergency)

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 60% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and revenue has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 78
  • Transparency & Controls: 76
  • Accountability: 74
  • Sustainability: 64
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 86.7%; rating input score 87
  • Program expense ratio: 88.3%; rating input score 88
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Pass
    • Conducts field audits: Limited
    • May suspend future funding: Limited
    • Requires financial reports: Limited
    • Conducts site visits: Limited
    • Requires grant agreements: Pass
    • May require repayment: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 85.1%; rating input score 85; 50th 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: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 13.5%; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 6.02; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.3%; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 5.1% per year; rating input score 100; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -9.7% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -0.4% per year; rating input score 0; 23rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 86.7% of revenue deployed · 88.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $287K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $14K · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 27 of 28 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2020 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.

  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 33/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 47/100.