Social Impact Lab Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
261324984
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2015
Forms available
Form 990 2015
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
6464605853
Rating
66
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
International Development

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$294,858
Expenses
$701,086
Assets
$1,138,819
Liabilities
$119,824

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

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • LAURA WALKER MCDONALD (CEO AND DIRE)

Highest reported compensation

  • LAURA WALKER MCDONALD (CEO AND DIRE): $63,252 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To help people and organizations to make systems and services more accessible, responsive, and resilient through inclusive technologies.

What it reported doing in 2015

In 2015 simlab supported organizations using inclusive technologies such as mobile, radio and analogue communications tools in their social change work, through design, implementation and monitoring support. Simlab worked as part of a consortium as the technology partner to implement inclusive technology feedback mechanisms in three pilots. The pilots were conducted with local ngos supporting maternal healthcare in india, somaliland and tanzania. Simlab assisted the organizations to scope out, develop and implement feedback mechanisms using sms, voice calls, suggestion boxes and other in person, low-barrier to access mechanisms. The project resulted in a case study highlighting the opportunities and challenges in implementing mobile-based feedback mechanisms with local organizations in challenging contexts. Additionally, simlab co-facilitated a learning event with the uk department for international development and the consortium partners to share findings from the pilots. Simlab also created a website www.feedbackmechanisms.org which hosts all the case studies, best practices and learning from the project. The project has also resulted in speaking engagements both in the us and the uk. Simlab also supported american red cross to identify an appropriate basic phone-oriented offering for their first aid mobile project; built sms-based appointment reminders, client surveys, and an emergency text line for baylegal; and investigated how the dc public library could deliver better information on social services to patrons, and prototyped an open-source tool that allowed librarians to build custom guided interviews.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 84% 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.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 92
  • Transparency & Controls: 50
  • Accountability: 64
  • Sustainability: 25
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 82.9%; rating input score 83
  • Fundraising efficiency: $52.65 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90%; rating input score 90; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Grant itemization coverage: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 83.3%; rating input score 83; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: -137.8%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.62; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.11; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 9%; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 82.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 6 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $581K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $63K · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 23 of 24 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 1/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 56/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 34/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 35/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.