Scivir

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
844544235
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2020
Forms available
Form 990 2020
Location
Mooresville, NC, USA
Phone
7049981322
Rating
61
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Pollution Abatement and Control Services

Reported finances

Revenue
$9,320
Expenses
$708
Assets
$8,612
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

2 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Noah Wolfe (President)
  • Shannon Pinnell (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • Noah Wolfe (President)
  • Shannon Pinnell (Vice President)

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 2020. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Our mission is to create new accessible technologies that accelerate environmental justice, by creating equal access to the tools and products of scientific discovery. In particular, we work to identify environmental justice concerns related to air quality in underprivileged communities through scientific research and the development of technologies to further this goal. We also disseminate this work to inform and empower these communities.

What it reported doing in 2020

We are currently developing a proof-of-concept of our design and scientific methodologies on the campus of North Carolina State University (NC State) Campus, with support from the NC State Sustainability Fund and Park Scholarships program. Currently, there is no data on outdoor air quality on NC State's campus. Yet, there are many staff, students, and faculty who may be susceptible to poor air quality. Therefore, we have been working to collect and analyze a large dataset on air quality on campus and provide a public portal for members of NC State's community to view our results. In 2020, we developed key technological capabilities for this project, including software code to run our sensors and the basic sensor enclosure design. We also developed an initial deployment plan, of 50 sensors at randomly generated points across campus. By taking samples in many locations, we will be able to get a more accurate understanding of the air quality of the area. We determined that the sensors will stay deployed for a full year to gather data over time. This first use of our technology will be a trial run and act as proof of technology. We will then upload the data collected to our website for the public to see. During this year, we prototyped the basic server infrastructure to host this publicly accessible website. In total, during 2020, we completed the initial design phase of this project, with the aim of successfully deploying our sensors on campus in 2021.

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: 38
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 82
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 7.6%; rating input score 8
  • 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: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 92.4%; rating input score 99; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 12.16; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • Where the money goes: 7.6% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 2 of 2 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $708 in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 2 people listed
  • Consistency: 39 of 40 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • 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.

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 8/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.