Social Venture Partners

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
911894424
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Seattle, WA, USA
Phone
2067616606
Rating
63
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Public Foundations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$832,419
Expenses
$746,750
Assets
$577,283
Liabilities
$247,029

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

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • EMIKO ATHERTON (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • EMIKO ATHERTON (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $215,428 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Svp seeks to foster a philanthropic and nonprofit sector that has the strength and resources to address systemic issues related to racial equity in svp core issue areas by building a community of engaged and educated philanthropists who understand their role in creating an equitable community, helping them make the greatest impact with their philanthropic giving, building the capacity of the leaders and organizations doing the hard work of addressing systemic issues, and increasing collaboration while leveraging best practices and sharing power.

What it reported doing in 2024

Capacity building: help nonprofits to be as effective as possible in delivering their programs and services by helping to build their organizational capacity. Social venture partners defines organizational capacity building as the development of core skills, management practices, strategies and systems to enhance an organization's effectiveness, sustainability, and ability to fulfill its mission. Social venture partners supports capacity building for its investees by providing cash grants, skilled volunteers, professional consultants, leadership development and management training opportunities.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 98% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The program-spending lines do not add up, so the filing cannot show reliably whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

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 fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 55
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 42
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 57.5%; rating input score 57
  • Program expense ratio: 63.6%; rating input score 64
  • Fundraising efficiency: $4.94 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 95.9%; rating input score 96; 43rd 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: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • 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: 10.3%; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.77; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.43; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 28.8%; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -14.3% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -6% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -0.8% per year; rating input score 0; 15th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 57.5% of revenue deployed · 63.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $475K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $215K · 16 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 33 of 34 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 11 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 10 filed related-organization links
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 57/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 17/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 35/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 7/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 18/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.