Shaw Community Ministry Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
510334496
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
2022321258
Rating
66
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Human Service Organizations

Reported finances

Revenue
$774,333
Expenses
$1,070,990
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$534,568

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

Leadership & pay

1 person listed

Highest reported compensation

  • Deidre Smith (Acting Director): $125,596 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 mission of scm is to enhance the lives and expand the opportunities of children, youth, and adults of the shaw community in Washington, d.c. Scm offers arts and humanities programs, educational opportunities, youth leadership development, and life skills programming to low income children and youth to develop them into responsible and productive adults.

What it reported doing in 2024

Educational programs - as an arts and humanities organization, scm provides humanities and arts-inspired, academically robust afterschool programs that serve 150 low-income bipoc youth, ages 5-19, with culturally responsive humanities and arts instruction, tutoring in reading, spelling and math. Our non-violent direct action capstone events include art all night, community achievement awards and celebrate your heritage. Our science, technology, engineering, arts, and math (steam) afterschool programs include structured educational support, guided recreation, meals and snacks, and social developmental asset building. Under the real news media interns program, scm empowers bipoc teens/young adults in learning digital media skills, and using those skills to produce and edit videos that are posted on social media and our website. These approaches address the deleterious effects of the pandemic, mental health challenges, and other societal disparities in education or representation.

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. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 79
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 10
  • Sustainability: 6
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 89.7%; rating input score 90
  • Program expense ratio: 64.8%; rating input score 65
  • Fundraising efficiency: $27.57 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 88.2%; rating input score 88; 3rd 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: 0%; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -38.3%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 11.7%; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 10.3% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8.4% per year; rating input score 100; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6.2% per year; rating input score 100; 44th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 89.7% of revenue deployed · 64.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 4 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $849K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $126K · 1 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $126K reported
  • Consistency: 27 of 29 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 4/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D land buildings reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 31/100.