SWEA International

Legal name: Swedish Women's Educational Association International Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
953430328
IRS 990 coverage
2017–2025
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-N 2009
Location
San Francisco, CA, USA
Phone
8584575252
Rating
68
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Cultural, Ethnic Awareness

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$265,613
Expenses
$178,365
Assets
$1,485,003
Liabilities
$18,760

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

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Charlotte Rigby Fors (President)
  • Eva Steinbach (Vice President)
  • Linda Tinaeus (Regional President ASOC)
  • Ariane Heffernan (Regional President MAME)
  • Mita Zell (Regional President OEMA)
  • Ursula Hultqvist (Regional President VAME)

Highest reported compensation

  • Katri Olander Serenius (Chief Administrative Officer through Oct 2025): $48,360 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Supporting and promoting Swedish culture, Swedish tradition and the Swedish language in the world; furthering worldwide friendship and personal growth among Swedish and Swedish-speaking women; supporting education and knowledge about Sweden by awarding scholarships; assisting members of SWEA locally in a new country and upon return to Sweden.

What it reported doing in 2025

Support of education through awards and scholarships. During the year ended December 31, 2025, The Agneta and Gunnar Nilsson Scholarship for Studies in Intercultural Relations, The Sigrid Paskell Scholarship for the Performing Arts, and Swedish Woman of the Year Award were awarded.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 67% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 79% for direct work, and 21% for grants.

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 revenue has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 51
  • Transparency & Controls: 75
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 70
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 41.8%; rating input score 42
  • Program expense ratio: 82.9%; rating input score 83
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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: Limited
    • Conducts field audits: Limited
    • May suspend future funding: Limited
    • Requires financial reports: Limited
    • Conducts site visits: Limited
    • Requires grant agreements: Limited
    • May require repayment: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 32.8%; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 8.33; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 27.1%; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 1.2% per year; rating input score 100; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -2.1% per year; rating input score 0; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 1.1% per year; rating input score 100; 27th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 4 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 2 operating locations identified
  • Where the money goes: 41.8% of revenue deployed · 82.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $148K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $48K · 15 people listed
  • Consistency: 26 of 26 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes foreign activity
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2017 to 2025
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 42/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 13/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 38/100.