Steam Hub 4 Ciss

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
993847105
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2024–2025
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2025
Location
Portland, OR, USA
Phone
5037804424
Rating
44
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Educational Services and Schools - Other

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$6,418
Expenses
$1,654
Assets
$5,157
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • David Terrell (President/Executive Director)

People named in this filing

  • David Terrell (President/Executive Director)
  • Craig Strong (Secretary)
  • Jonise Orie (Treassure)

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

The STEAM Hub 4 CISS was created to help students find their pathways to a prosperous and meaningful life, by providing mentoring, career and life coaching, and Math and Science tutoring.

What it reported doing in 2025

We continued as last year, focusing on networking. We reached agreements with two organizations, the Hope Center PDX in Gresham, Oregon, where we started mentoring low-income students, and with Chemeketa College Woodburn Center, where we are mentoring and providing life coaching to students.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 88% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% 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

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and program spending has grown recently. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 4
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 82
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 1.6%; rating input score 2
  • Program expense ratio: 6%; rating input score 6

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 74.2%; rating input score 96; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.12; rating input score 75; 75th 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: 200% per year; rating input score 100; 100th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 171.1% per year; rating input score 100; 100th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 171.7% per year; rating input score 100; 99th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 1.6% of revenue deployed · 6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $100 in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 9 of 9 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 1 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2024 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 2/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 6/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.