SECME Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
581375512
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2019
Forms available
Form 990 2019
Location
Atlanta, GA, USA
Phone
4048943314
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Secondary, High School

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$254,532
Expenses
$287,485
Assets
$128,152
Liabilities
$25,396

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2019. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Michele L Williams (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Michele L Williams (Executive Director): $119,813 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2019. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To increase the pool of historically underrepresented and under-served students who will be prepared to enter and complete post-secondary studies in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM); thus creating a diverse and globally competitive workforce.

What it reported doing in 2019

Expend funds for the increased achievement and interest in STEM majors and careers among minorities and girls in grades K-12. Train teachers in under-served communities to integrate engaging STEM content and competitions into classroom learning. Run a national robotics and engineering design competition free to participating students at a partner university campus. And link local schools with university partners to improve college access. SECME serves more than 6,000 students each year (grade K-12) in 10 states, the District of Columbia, and the Bahamas. Our student survey showed our population to be 74% minority, 47% female, and 88% free and reduced lunch eligible. Among participating high school juniors and seniors surveyed, 82% intended to pursue a STEM major, with 55% planning to major in an engineering discipline.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 81% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 91% 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 a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 66
  • Transparency & Controls: 94
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 20
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 73.6%; rating input score 74
  • Program expense ratio: 65.2%; rating input score 65
  • Fundraising efficiency: $7.69 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 33; 33rd 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: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • 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: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • 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: -12.9%; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.45; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.2; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 41.7%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -14.9% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -11% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 0.4% per year; rating input score 100; 34th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 73.6% of revenue deployed · 65.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 3 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $187K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $120K · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 25 of 25 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2011 to 2019
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 33/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 20/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 22/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 6/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 25/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.