Saving Promise Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
800359858
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2020
Forms available
Form 990 2020
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
8007745760
Rating
42
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Protection Against Abuse

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$74,380
Expenses
$89,100
Assets
$27,288
Liabilities
$17,101

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • LY MARLOW (CEO AND CHAI)

Highest reported compensation

  • LY MARLOW (CEO AND CHAI): $19,600 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Saving promises mission is to advance evidence-based strategies, cross-sectors collaboration and engagement with the community to prevent domestic violence by an intimate partner. (cont'd in form o)

What it reported doing in 2020

Operations & oversight: - managed day-to-day operations and logistics, including partners, staff, and volunteers, to carry out the mission of the organization. - developed strategic plans to ensure that the organization's priorities align with its mission, vision, and values. - collaborated with stakeholders and staff to develop concepts, best practices, and policies for various program initiatives. - developed annual budgets and fundraising plans and collaborated with the board to ensure that the organization has financial means to carry out its mission. - facilitated board engagement and oversight toward achieving our strategic goals, including: setting the priorities for the organization and its mission critical programs; capacity-building; board governance and restructuring; fundraising; securing partners, stakeholders, and funders. Harvard learning lab: - led the day-to-day oversight, operations, and logistics for the harvard learning lab. - established a mission critical program, between us, to engage community- based partnerships with employers, healthcare institutions, public and private schools, youth organizations, social services and faith-based organizations to develop customized e-learning, in-person and continuing education trainings and provide comprehensive education to enhance knowledge and develop skills necessary to access, intervene, and prevent domestic violence. - developed and piloted a grassroots initiative to reach more people and build greater public awareness that aims tobringtogether small groups of people in a salon style gathering to learn about domestic violence and share how they might further prevention efforts in their neighborhoods, workplaces, schools, and communities and pledge their time, talents, and treasure to raise awareness and spark community engagement at the grassroots level. - presented the transforming the public health approach to intimate partner violence at various virtual summits, conferences and brainstorm sessions to further greater evidence-based research, public education and prevention.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 96% 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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up. 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: 22
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 16
  • Sustainability: 26
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 25.9%; rating input score 26
  • Program expense ratio: 21.6%; rating input score 22
  • 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: 0%; rating input score 0; 8th 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: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -19.8%; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.31; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.63; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 22%; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 22.1% per year; rating input score 100; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -1.9% per year; rating input score 0; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -15.2% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 25.9% of revenue deployed · 21.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 9 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $19K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $20K · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 23 of 23 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2013 to 2020
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 26/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 22/100.
  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 43/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 10/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 9/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 13/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.