NCSSM Student & Constituent Support Services Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
861135286
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2022
Location
Durham, NC, USA
Phone
9194162801
Rating
65
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$148,387
Expenses
$79,461
Assets
$499,945
Liabilities
$168,021

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

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Brock Winslow (President)
  • Terry Lynch (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • J Todd Roberts (Board Member): $617,138 total reported compensation
  • Terry Lynch (Executive Director): $216,771 total reported compensation
  • Brock Winslow (President): $200,360 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 operate for student and constituent support of the North Carolina School of Science and Mathematics.

What it reported doing in 2024

SCSSI was able to effectively adjust to operations on two campuses (Durham and Morganton). In August 2022, a second campus for the institution was added in the western part of the state increasing the total number of students and families served as well as the number of employees that we work with. SCSSI has been able to provide consistent services and support for students on both campuses during this time period and will be looking to identify areas to improve.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 79% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% 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

SUPPORTED - A large share of total spending goes to programs and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and a relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 66
  • Transparency & Controls: 60
  • Accountability: 82
  • Sustainability: 69
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 59.3%; rating input score 59
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 56
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 46.5%; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 6.29; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.34; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 784.4%; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -14.4% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -13.7% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 11.5% per year; rating input score 100; 70th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 59.3% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 5 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $79K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $617K · 9 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 16 of 16 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2009 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: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 59/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 15/100.