SCAGO EFC Beaufort County School District

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
141984339
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Beaufort, SC, USA
Phone
8433222397
Rating
49
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Reported finances

Revenue
$12,617,403
Expenses
$27,875
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • J BROCK HERON (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • JOHN K GARDNER (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • FRANK RODRIGUEZ (DIRECTOR): $424,517 total reported compensation
  • TONYA CROSBY (SECRETARY/TREASURER): $261,247 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The corporation was formed for educational and charitable purposes, specifically to undertake certain obligations with respect to the acquisition or sale of real and/or personal property in connnection with the design, construction, operation, financing, and refinancing of education facilities to be used by the beaufort county school district and such other projects located in and for the benefit of the school district as may be permitted by applicable law.

What it reported doing in 2024

Pursuant to the facilities agreement, the school district purchased the facilities incrementally from the efc. Also, pursuant to the facilities agreement and subject to the right of non-appropriation, the school district made installments payment of purchase price (lease rental payments) to the efc in amounts calculated to be sufficient to enable the efc to pay the principal and interest on the outstanding series 2016 bonds. On january 29, 2024, pursuant to a prepayment agreement among the efc, the school district and dnt asset trust, the holder of the series 2016 bonds, the efc and the school district prepaid all amounts due including principal and interest on the series 2016 bonds. Upon the prepayment, all of the financing documents used in connection with the issuance of the series 2016 bonds, including but not limited to the facilities agreement, were terminated. The school district and the efc no longer have any financial or legal obligations pursuant to the facilities agreement or any other financing document referenced above. It is anticipated that the efc will be dissolved prior to june 30, 2025. Any corporate assets remaining will be transferred to the school district during the dissolution process.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 100% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and program spending has grown recently. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 28
  • Transparency & Controls: 68
  • Accountability: 56
  • Sustainability: 47
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0.2%; rating input score 0
  • Program expense ratio: 83.8%; rating input score 84
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Scored; rating input score 0

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 60%; rating input score 60; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 99.8%; rating input score 100; 100th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 618.8%; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 22.1% per year; rating input score 100; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 31.5% per year; rating input score 100; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -18.7% per year; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0.2% of revenue deployed · 83.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 5 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $23K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $425K · 5 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 16 of 16 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes grants, executive pay, and related organizations
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2015 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 3 filed related-organization links
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Related-party transparency scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 0/100.