Shadow Student Athlete Development Services Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
454650077
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Phone
4129806481
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Youth Development Programs

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$435,674
Expenses
$515,107
Assets
$172,661
Liabilities
$207,450

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DEVON MADDEN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • DEVON MADDEN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $41,009 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The organization assists student athletes in transitioning their competitive nature into a classroom

What it reported doing in 2024

Through three innovative initiatives, shadow student athlete development services implements a culturally responsive mentoring practice to impact the new education crisis in Pennsylvania, racially inequitable discipline practices pushing african american students, specifically male youth, out of public school the aim initiative places character coaches who are community-centric in high-needs pittsburgh public schools as conflict specialists to support students, families and school staff by modeling culturally specific mentoring practices, managing class transition periods and providing intensive support through individual or group sessions and assessing the cultural health of the community. Since the start of the covid-19 pandemic, these services have been transitioned outside of school.

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

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 79
  • Transparency & Controls: 86
  • Accountability: 69
  • Sustainability: 16
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 89.3%; rating input score 89
  • Program expense ratio: 75.6%; rating input score 76
  • Fundraising efficiency: $11.08 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 25th 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 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Fail
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -18.2%; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.34; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 1.2; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 8%; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -0.6% per year; rating input score 0; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 0.6% per year; rating input score 100; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 2.6% per year; rating input score 100; 36th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 89.3% of revenue deployed · 75.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $389K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $41K · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 23 of 24 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2016 to 2024
  • 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.

  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 42/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 15/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 17/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 4/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 30/100.