Senior Ride Charleston

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
202311192
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2017
Forms available
Form 990 2017, Form 990-EZ 2010
Location
N Charleston, SC, USA
Rating
84
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Standard

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$262,841
Expenses
$278,493
Assets
$27,394
Liabilities
$53,154

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JIM LEDBETTER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • JIM LEDBETTER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $50,604 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To provide transportation 24/7 to seniors 60 years and older and to visually impaired individuals of any age

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The required major-donor schedule is missing or incomplete and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 93
  • Transparency & Controls: 77
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 17
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 98.3%; rating input score 98
  • Program expense ratio: 92.8%; rating input score 93
  • Fundraising efficiency: $24.9 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: No; rating input score 0
  • 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: -6%; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.1; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 1.94; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 18.2%; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 2.4% per year; rating input score 100; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.9% per year; rating input score 100; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 1.6% per year; rating input score 100; 42nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 98.3% of revenue deployed · 92.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $259K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $51K · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 25 of 26 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2011 to 2017
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 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: Major donor itemization scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 27/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 6/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 2/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 22/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.