Service Year Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
465251449
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2017
Forms available
Form 990 2017, Form 990-N 2015
Location
New York, NY, USA
Phone
9179602211
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Human Service Organizations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$995,514
Expenses
$1,082,078
Assets
$109,137
Liabilities
$10,000

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

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MATTHEW S RONEN (CHAIRMAN/PRESIDENT)
  • PATRICK HULSY (VICE PRESIDENT/TREASURER)

Highest reported compensation

  • MATTHEW S RONEN (CHAIRMAN/PRESIDENT): $125,990 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Service year aims to foster social responsibility in the private sector and to develop a new generation of socially conscious leaders in the corporate, social, and public sectors. In light of this purpose, service year will have two primary activities: (a) to broadly promote and to support the feasibility of college graduates devoting time to charitable public service before they start their careers in the private sector, and (b) to build and administer a fellowship program that partners private employers and recent college graduates with a variety of charitable and not-forprofit organizations, enabling a number of recent college graduates to engage in a year of charitable public service prior to working for their respective employers.

What it reported doing in 2017

The fellowship program allows recent college graduates who have secured job offers from various participating private employers to apply to spend two-and-a-half years as "service year fellows." in the first year, fellows are paired with a not-for-profit organization in need of talented young individuals, where they will engage in productive service to the charitableorganization throughout the year. For the remaining time of the fellowship, the fellows will return to their private employers, where they will complete an eighteen-month commitment.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 66% 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 - 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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 79
  • Transparency & Controls: 75
  • Accountability: 55
  • Sustainability: 18
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 92.1%; rating input score 92
  • Program expense ratio: 84.7%; rating input score 85
  • 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: No; rating input score 0
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 66.7%; rating input score 67; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -8.7%; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.1; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.09; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 11.6%; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 78.6% per year; rating input score 100; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 27.1% per year; rating input score 100; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -59.2% per year; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 92.1% of revenue deployed · 84.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 2 of 3 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $917K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $126K · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 28 of 28 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2016 to 2017
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 16/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 5/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 30/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 50/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.