Shafeek Nader Trust for the Community Interest Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
521515687
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
2023878030
Rating
68
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$152,444
Expenses
$51,630
Assets
$1,010,446
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Claire Nader (President/Treasurer)

People named in this filing

  • Claire Nader (President/Treasurer)
  • Laura Milleron (Secretary)
  • Dina Osman (Board of Director)

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 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To deepen the ability and capacity of citizens to participate and shape the quality of their democracy in their community, seeking excellence in the daily practice of citizenship.

What it reported doing in 2024

The Connecticut-based Community Lawyer Project was founded to build models of a community lawyer/advocate in different types of communities in order to strengthen democratic self-governing processes and practices. The Citizen Advocacy Center (CAC), based in Elmhurst, IL is a 501(c)(3) , and a sister project. The Trust founded this institution with a grant and this support continues. The grants are used to advance the idea and practice of community lawyering through instruction and action, in order to deepen the quality of the citizenry and the public's self-governing capacities and resources in the suburban setting west and far west of Chicago. Educational workshops, films and lectures are held to advance a more resourceful and self-reliant civic life, with a particular focus on locally-based economies, health care, farmer's markets, community gardens, and all such activity directed to meeting basic human needs.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.

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 program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 57
  • Transparency & Controls: 73
  • Accountability: 88
  • Sustainability: 90
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 41.7%; rating input score 42
  • Program expense ratio: 99.7%; rating input score 100
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Pass
    • Conducts field audits: Limited
    • May suspend future funding: Limited
    • Requires financial reports: Limited
    • Conducts site visits: Limited
    • Requires grant agreements: Limited
    • May require repayment: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 83.5%; rating input score 84; 49th 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: 5 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 71
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • 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: 66.1%; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 19.57; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -14.7% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -7.2% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.4% per year; rating input score 100; 49th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 41.7% of revenue deployed · 99.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 3 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $52K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 43 of 45 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and grants
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2014 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 3 filed related-organization links
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 42/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.