North American Regional Committee For St Georges College Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
621343994
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2010
Location
Alexandria, VA, USA
Phone
7038697874
Rating
64
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Single Organization Support

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,057,548
Expenses
$732,030
Assets
$2,436,570
Liabilities
$1,938

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

Leadership & pay

22 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • The Rev Andrew Sherman (VICE-PRESIDENT)
  • The Rev Barkley Thompson (PRESIDENT)
  • Barbara Warder (Executive Director (rolled off))
  • Laura Simmons (Executive Director (rolled on))

Highest reported compensation

  • Laura Simmons (Executive Director (rolled on)): $33,750 total reported compensation
  • Barbara Warder (Executive Director (rolled off)): $2,500 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 serve in a supportive role to st. Georges college, jerusalem. This support takes the following forms: raising funds for college programs, providing information and application guidance about the college to prospective students, and providing a network for college alumni.

What it reported doing in 2024

To direct the use of support for the wide-ranging needs of st. George's college, including the providing of scholarships for individuals attending college, the support of the college's educational and cultural programs; and the support of expansion and maintenance of the college's physical facilities.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 92% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 94% 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 a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 41
  • Transparency & Controls: 79
  • Accountability: 74
  • Sustainability: 78
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 34.2%; rating input score 34
  • Program expense ratio: 39.3%; rating input score 39
  • Fundraising efficiency: $92.38 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 0 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Limited
    • 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; 76th 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: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 30.8%; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.33; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5%; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 8.3% per year; rating input score 100; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 14% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8.3% per year; rating input score 100; 53rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 34.2% of revenue deployed · 39.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 21 of 21 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $288K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $34K · 22 people listed
  • Consistency: 31 of 31 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • 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 34/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 39/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 53/100.