Shine Some Light

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
452402944
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2015
Forms available
Form 990 2015
Location
Santa Barbara, CA, USA
Phone
8058801683
Rating
59
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Civil Rights, Social Action, Advocacy N.E.C.

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$251,286
Expenses
$353,776
Assets
$132,082
Liabilities
$1,839

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • William Cody (CEO, Director, Board Chair)

Highest reported compensation

  • William Cody (CEO, Director, Board Chair): $120,083 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The mission of shine some light, Inc is to provide humanitarian aid to the poor and needy in the united states and abroad though mobilizing local human and financial resources for projects that contribute to eradicating poverty

What it reported doing in 2015

Shine has partnered with Empower Initiative. Empower uses partners to identify inner cities that need to Experience sustainable change. They build relationships with the existing leaders, both non-profit and for profit sectors, coordinating a strategic plan to create empower campaigns. The Empower campaigns invest in best-practice organizations through coaching collaborative strategy and financial resources, support outcomes by aligning programmatic response with opportunities for social enterprising, and build capacity within coalition of good will by providing leadership labs and immersion experiences that raise awareness and ownership of the causes.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 67% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 88% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

MIXED - Most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of total spending goes to programs and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 59
  • Transparency & Controls: 56
  • Accountability: 79
  • Sustainability: 16
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 75.3%; rating input score 75
  • Program expense ratio: 53.4%; rating input score 53
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; 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: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Pass
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 0%; rating input score 0; 17th 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: 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: -40.8%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.37; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 33.9%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -7.4% per year; rating input score 0; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6.1% per year; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -33.6% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 75.3% of revenue deployed · 53.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 3 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $189K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $120K · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 39 of 40 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2013 to 2015
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 53/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 6 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 6/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 21/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 8/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 55/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.