Shorebank Enterprise Group

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
341757217
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2016
Forms available
Form 990 2016
Location
Chicago, IL, USA
Phone
3126626099
Rating
60
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Urban, Community Economic Development

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,202,343
Expenses
$195,965
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

People named in this filing

  • Mark Miley (Director)
  • Stephen M Mondozzi (Treasurer)
  • Lafayette Carthon (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 2016. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To provide affordable, below market office and warehouse space to small and medium-sized businesses headquartered in Cleveland. The Organization uses a reduced rent structure in the Glenville Enterprise center as an incentive to grow, hire and retain local residents.

What it reported doing in 2016

Glenville Enterprise Center is a 166,000 square foot, mixed use facility that the Organization renovated in a neighborhood characterized by high levels of unemployment, poverty, and deteriorated physical infrastructure. The Center is home to nearly 40 businesses and 200 employees. Local businesses can find affordable space in this facility. The building was transferred to Cuyahoga County Land Revitalization Corporation on March 31, 2016 for the purpose of promoting economic and housing development in the county.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 98% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
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 - 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: 41
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 69
  • Sustainability: 56
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 15.9%; rating input score 16
  • Program expense ratio: 97.5%; rating input score 97
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 66.7%; rating input score 67; 12th 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: 83.7%; rating input score 99; 99th 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: 0%; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -34.3% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -34.1% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -47.8% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 15.9% of revenue deployed · 97.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 2 of 3 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $191K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 19 of 19 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2010 to 2016
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 16/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.