School of Urban Missions
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 721226741
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2009–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- El Dorado Hills, CA, USA
- Phone
- 9163061868
- Rating
- 70
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $3,037,374
- Expenses
- $3,660,754
- Assets
- $16,936,192
- Liabilities
- $12,617,424
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
11 people listed
Highest reported compensation
- REV George NEAU (Chancellor): $150,000 total reported compensation
- Robert E Hornick (CFO): $30,000 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Theological education
What it reported doing in 2024
SUM Bible College and Theological Seminary (SUM) equips indigenous leaders fromAmerica and the nations of the world with an affordable theological education that blends academic instruction with practical hands-on ministry and personal mentorship. Our mission is to empower these leaders to be instruments of change in their communities. Currently, SUM offers six degrees at undergraduate and graduate levels (MDiv, MABS, MACL, BATM, BAWM, AATM) that are regionally (WASC) and nationally accredited (ABHE). Since 2008, the launch of its Cohort Model and online delivery method has allowed SUM to expand into several states within the U.S. and globally, enrolling students from over 25 countries.In the years following the onset of COVID-19, despite an enrollment decline, SUM hasproactively adapted by digitizing nearly all of its degree offerings for online access. This effort has positioned SUM for a bright future that leverages advancements in educational technology and online learning while continuing to strengthen its extensive church and parachurch networks globally.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 87% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 64% for direct work, and 36% for grants.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 70
- Transparency & Controls: 75
- Accountability: 74
- Sustainability: 35
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 83.6%; rating input score 84
- Program expense ratio: 69.4%; rating input score 69
- Fundraising efficiency: $1.1 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 3; 3rd 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: Scored; rating input score 0
- Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 83.3%; rating input score 83; 16th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Other executive compensation review process: Pass
- Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -20.5%; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.63; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.74; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 4.9%; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -2.5% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 0.8% per year; rating input score 100; 14th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 12.6% per year; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 83.6% of revenue deployed · 69.4% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 5 of 6 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2.5M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $150K · 11 people listed
- Consistency: 29 of 29 current checks pass
- Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and grants
- Filing history: 15 filing years from 2009 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 4 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.
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 — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 3/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 7/100.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 12/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 54/100.
- Review — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization could not be resolved against the register, so the check is unfinished.