Shields and Stripes Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
863379162
IRS 990 coverage
2021–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Carthage, NC, USA
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Fund Raising and/or Fund Distribution

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$422,765
Expenses
$686,058
Assets
$78,576
Liabilities
$121,763

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • STEVEN NISBET (Executive Dir.): $15,675 total reported compensation
  • JENNIFER BYRNE (CLINICAL DIR.): $15,458 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The Organization focuses on Health and Well Being of Veterans andMembers of the Police Forces and First Responders that need specificattention including assistance with Post Traumatic Stress Disorders

What it reported doing in 2025

Provision of Services to Armed Forces Veterans and Police andFirefighters that have infliction of PTSD and other related stressoccurances due to being in action in their respective areas. Theseservices are including but not limited to counselling services, group and individual therapy sessions, which are done in locationsaround the country based on need as well as the provision of groupactivties such as sports to offer theraputic relief.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 68% 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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 78
  • Transparency & Controls: 57
  • Accountability: 79
  • Sustainability: 8
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 65.7%; rating input score 66
  • Fundraising efficiency: $1.3 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 84.6%; rating input score 85; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • 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: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -62.3%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.11; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 1.55; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.5%; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 35.3% per year; rating input score 100; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 27.2% per year; rating input score 100; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 16.1% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 65.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 5 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $451K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $16K · 7 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 20 of 22 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2021 to 2025
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 7/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 3/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 8/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Independent members within voting members did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 2/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 31/100.