Social Venture Partners Charlotte

Legal name: Social Venture Partners Charlotte Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
202745238
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2025
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Charlotte, NC, USA
Phone
7045776055
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Philanthropy, Charity, Voluntarism Promotion

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$468,644
Expenses
$407,293
Assets
$516,600
Liabilities
$75,616

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • Kristin Beck (Executive Dir.): $92,171 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To create lasting social impact by connecting people, capital, and ideas to help nonprofits grow.

What it reported doing in 2025

SEED20: We celebrated our 12th year by returning to the stage with several program enhancements on April 1, 2025, which enabled us to spotlight 9 high impact and diverse nonprofits from the Charlotte, NC metro area. We awarded $55,000 in cash awards, plus in-kind prizes valued at $16,000. We enabled a convenient online giving platform that raised $71,386, including a generous match from Wells Fargo. We also hosted a series of 8 skill building and networking programs for our alumni focused on finance, fundraising and board capabilities to support the growth of our SEED20 nonprofits beyond the stage.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 63% for direct work, and 37% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 76
  • Transparency & Controls: 84
  • Accountability: 79
  • Sustainability: 47
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 75.9%; rating input score 76
  • Program expense ratio: 86.8%; rating input score 87
  • Fundraising efficiency: $13.28 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 80.5%; rating input score 81; 51st 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; 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: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 13.1%; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.27; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.15; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 22.6%; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -4% per year; rating input score 0; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -0.4% per year; rating input score 0; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7% per year; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 6 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 75.9% of revenue deployed · 86.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $354K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $92K · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 24 of 25 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2014 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 4 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.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 45/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 47/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 16/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 19/100.