The Small-scale Sustainable Infra-
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 043582215
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2009
- Location
- Cambridge, MA, USA
- Phone
- 6175760652
- Rating
- 72
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- International Relief
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $226,442
- Expenses
- $422,681
- Assets
- $1,011,125
- Liabilities
- $21,038
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
6 people listed
Highest reported compensation
- ELIZABETH FRIEND (MANAGING DIR): $119,445 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To achieve poverty alleviation and economic development, s3idf strenghtens small-scale enterprises and invest in high impact early-stage businesses to improve livess and livelihoods in underserved communities. Through financing and technical and businesses assistance, s3idf works to improve opportunities for low-income workers, address gender inequities, and generate environmental benefits in the agriculture, waste/sanitation, clean energy and other sectors. To disseminate and implement its work, s3idf also works closely with non- governmental community and non-profit organizations. It shares its trademarked "social merchant bank approach" to improve the pro-poor effectiveness of projects and programs implemented by international and local development agencies as well as the impact investing community.
What it reported doing in 2024
Provides technological business development and financing assistance to nongovernmental private, community and nonprofit organizations in developing countries to provide infrastructure services for poverty alleviation and economic development.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 72% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 76% for direct work, and 24% for grants.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and a relatively small share of voting board members are independent.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 80
- Transparency & Controls: 75
- Accountability: 64
- Sustainability: 26
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
- Program expense ratio: 68%; rating input score 68
- Fundraising efficiency: $3.53 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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: 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: 57.1%; rating input score 57; 17th 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: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -86.7%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.39; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 28.3%; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -2.4% per year; rating input score 0; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 3.7% per year; rating input score 100; 45th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 0.5% per year; rating input score 100; 27th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 68% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 4 of 7 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $287K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $119K · 6 people listed
- Consistency: 29 of 29 current checks pass
- 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: 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: 8 of 8 not reported.
- Review — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 57/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 16/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 3/100.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 12/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 40/100.