South Carolina Association of Community Action Partnerships

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
550861643
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Columbia, SC, USA
Phone
8037719404
Rating
68
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$11,844,037
Expenses
$10,444,795
Assets
$10,722,933
Liabilities
$125,000

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

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • KARHRYN WOODS (Vice President PO Drawer 3970 Florence SC 29502)
  • DR ARTHUR BREWTON (President 230 Bryant rd Spartanburg SC 29106)
  • JESSICA MCMOORE (Executive Director SCACAP 2700 Middleburg dr Columbia SC 29204)

Highest reported compensation

  • JESSICA MCMOORE (Executive Director SCACAP 2700 Middleburg dr Columbia SC 29204): $171,909 total reported compensation
  • REBECCA CLARK (Early Head Start Director 2700 Middleburg dr 29204): $90,978 total reported compensation
  • DAVID IGIOZEE (CFO SCACAP 2700 Middleburg dr Columbia SC 29204): $76,215 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Community Action changes peoples lives embodies the spirit of hope improves communities and makes America a better place to live. We care about the entire community and we are dedicated to helping people help themselves and each other.

What it reported doing in 2025

Early Head Start Program: This program helps to raise the quality of early care and education in the community and helps children start school ready to succeed. It support higher caliber classroom instructions home visiting services and effective family engagement and health promotions. It focuses mainly on providing comprehensive child development services to predominantly economically disadvantaged children and families.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 92% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 65
  • Transparency & Controls: 56
  • Accountability: 86
  • Sustainability: 56
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 69.7%; rating input score 70
  • Program expense ratio: 79.1%; rating input score 79
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 83.3%; rating input score 83; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • 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: 6 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: 11.8%; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.03; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 3.6%; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 13.5% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 17.7% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 9% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 69.7% of revenue deployed · 79.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $8.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $172K · 15 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 37 of 40 current checks pass · 3 findings to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2020 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 9 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 30/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX OfficeExpenses column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.