South Carolina Council for the Social Studies
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 570845381
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2011–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2025, Form 990-N 2025
- Location
- Columbia, SC, USA
- Phone
- 8032062258
- Rating
- 70
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Social Science
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $73,285
- Expenses
- $65,292
- Assets
- $39,682
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
12 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Timothy C Hicks (President)
- Lindsay N Weirich (Vice President)
- Brock Beaver (President- elect)
- Marc Turner (Immediate Past President)
People named in this filing
- Charles F Vaughan (Treasurer)
- Timothy C Hicks (President)
- Lindsay N Weirich (Vice President)
Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Promoting advancement study improvement of social studies education in South Carolina schools
What it reported doing in 2025
Maintained membership engagement hosted professional development workshops including SCGAGeoFEST and iCivics initiatives and successfully executed the annual state conference to support social studies educators across districts
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 91% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 97% 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 - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. Program spending has declined or grown slowly and assets have declined or grown slowly.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 65
- Transparency & Controls: 82
- Sustainability: 54
- Growth: 40
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 62.4%; rating input score 62
- Program expense ratio: 70.2%; rating input score 70
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 10.9%; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.61; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -0.9% per year; rating input score 0; 45th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 3.1% per year; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -3.5% per year; rating input score 0; 27th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 62.4% of revenue deployed · 70.2% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $46K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 12 people listed
- Consistency: 9 of 9 current checks pass
- Schedules: 2 filed schedules
- Filing history: 10 filing years from 2011 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- 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 — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 36/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.