Salem Community College

Legal name: Salem County 2000 Inc C/o Salem Community College

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
223215163
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2016
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2016
Location
Carneys Point, NJ, United States
Phone
856.299.2100
Rating
67
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Religion Related N.E.C.
Affiliation
Religious (unspecified)

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$40,373
Expenses
$12,067
Assets
$55,732
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

2 people listed

People named in this filing

  • JOHN JORDAN (CHAIRPERSON)
  • CONSTANCE MULHORN MCALLISTER (SEC/TREAS)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Your SCC is the education epicenter providing personalized, affordable, quality, and empowering education for transfer and workforce. 3. Provide proof of English language comprehension/fluency. Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) scores of 68 (iBT), 190 (CbT) or 520 (paper-based format) are required. Salem Community College does not offer intensive English as a Second Language instruction. TOEFL test scores must be submitted directly from the Educational Testing Service (ETS) to Salem Community College. Photocopies from the student are not acceptable. 4. Submit proof of age through copy of birth certificate or passport. 5. Provide an Affidavit of Support Form (USCIS Form I-134) completed by the student's sponsor. Supporting documentation (bank statements) reflecting a minimum of $16,000 must accompany the affidav.

What it reported doing in 2016

To increase salem county residents' skills, abilities and contributions to society as well as to achieve national and state goals for it's students through the education of it's students by utilizing the resources which are available through educational, business and community organizations and representatives.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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 - 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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 50
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 82
  • Sustainability: 75
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 29.9%; rating input score 30
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 57
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 70.1%; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.62; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -36.9% per year; rating input score 0; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -10.1% per year; rating input score 0; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -18.3% per year; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 7 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 29.9% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 4 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $12K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 2 people listed
  • Consistency: 13 of 13 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2011 to 2016
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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 30/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 49/100.