Saint Andrews Society of Charleston

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
576003120
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2018
Forms available
Form 990 2018, Form 990-EZ 2017
Location
Charleston, SC, USA
Phone
8435183781
Rating
56
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$136,065
Expenses
$79,840
Assets
$535,349
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2018. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Christopher Silcox (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Alston Middleton (Secretary/Treas): $2,500 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2018. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Fraternal and Civic Organization

What it reported doing in 2018

To provide a place to encourage civic leadership and community involvement through monthly meetings and an annual banquet.

Operating model

Revenue model
Membership-supported. 91% of the money available for current operations came from membership dues.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 80% for direct work, and 20% for grants.

The verdict

MIXED - A large share of total spending goes to programs and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and a relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 62
  • Transparency & Controls: 80
  • Accountability: 0
  • Sustainability: 82
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 59%; rating input score 59
  • Program expense ratio: 87.4%; rating input score 87
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 88.9%; rating input score 89; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 0 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Fail
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 41.3%; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 6.71; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 3.1%; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -15.5% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2.8% per year; rating input score 100; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4.4% per year; rating input score 100; 53rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 59% of revenue deployed · 87.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 4 board members independent · 0 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $70K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $2K · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 15 of 15 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2016 to 2018
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 59/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 7 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 39/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.