Support the Enlisted Project Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
203051279
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
San Diego, CA, USA
Phone
8586956810
Rating
71
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Military, Veterans' Organizations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$7,541,119
Expenses
$3,829,244
Assets
$9,009,475
Liabilities
$2,783,812

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

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ANTHONY TERAVAINEN (CEO/PRESIDENT)
  • KATHI BRADSHAW (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • ANTHONY TERAVAINEN (CEO/PRESIDENT): $186,136 total reported compensation
  • KATHI BRADSHAW (VICE PRESIDENT): $137,200 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Support the enlisted project, inc., (step) is to assist junior active duty enlisted members and recently discharged enlisted veterans, and their families, facing financial crisis achieve long term financial self-sufficiency through counseling, education and grants to alleviate critical near term obligations.

What it reported doing in 2024

Step provides individualized financial counseling, emergency financial grants and morale program assistance to active duty and recently discharged enlisted military personnel and their families. Emergency financial assistance includes: auto payments and insurance; auto repair; critical baby items; emergency dental care; emergency childcare and in-home health care; emergency food; emergency travel; essential home items: rent and mortgage, utilities, vision care; and other crucial emergency financial services. Morale programs include: financial planning seminars/classes, holiday programs, wounded warrior caregiver respite programs, and the distribution of in-kind goods and services.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 98% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 54% for direct work, and 46% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 53
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 71
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 39.5%; rating input score 39
  • Program expense ratio: 76.8%; rating input score 77
  • Fundraising efficiency: $15.11 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd 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: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 49.2%; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.35; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.31; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 8.4%; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 10.1% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 16.6% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 30.8% per year; rating input score 100; 93rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 39.5% of revenue deployed · 76.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2.9M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $186K · 14 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 34 of 34 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2014 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 39/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 51/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 33/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 35/100.