Soldier Strong Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
462142225
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2013
Location
Stamford, CT, USA
Phone
2038322005
Rating
80
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Scholarships, Student Financial Aid Services, Awards

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,302,839
Expenses
$1,478,463
Assets
$160,350
Liabilities
$222,547

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CHRISTINA STROBACK (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • CHRISTOPHER MEEK (CHAIRMAN): $105,000 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To provide support and opportunities to returning soldiers and military personnel to assist them in returning to civilian life and workforce. To provide basic essentials to the men and women of u.s. Armed forces serving on the battlefields for the united states of america. To provide funding and support for exo-skeletal suit purchase and research. To provide funding and support for veterans and servicemembers suffering from ptsd.

What it reported doing in 2024

Soldier strong has raised funds and partnered with other not-for-profit organizations and corporate sponsors to collect and buy items needed for front line troops on duty overseas, and to ship those items where needed the most. The organization has also raised funds to go towards the purchase of exo-skeletal suits and equipment to be given to returning wounded troops to help them integrate back into society.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 95% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 81% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. The filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 91
  • Transparency & Controls: 62
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 14
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 90.2%; rating input score 90
  • Fundraising efficiency: $12.49 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 87.5%; rating input score 88; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 0.5%; rating input score 0; 25th 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: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • 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: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -13.5%; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.11; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 1.39; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 7.1%; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 5.5% per year; rating input score 100; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5.2% per year; rating input score 100; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 16.5% per year; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 90.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $105K · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 24 of 26 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2014 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 45/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 14/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 5/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 3/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 47/100.