Survjustice Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
471235373
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2015–2015
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2015, Form 990-N 2014
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
2026007839
Rating
38
Verdict
REVIEW
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Protection Against Abuse

Reported finances

Revenue
$164,030
Expenses
$108,129
Assets
$59,502
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • S DANIEL CARTER (PRESIDENT)
  • WAGATWE WANJUKI (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • LAURA L DUNN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

People named in this filing

  • S DANIEL CARTER (PRESIDENT)
  • AUSTIN KING (TREASURER)
  • MEG GARVIN (SECRETARY)

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 2015. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Survjustice increases the prospect of justice for survivors of sexual violence by providing survivor assistance and holding both perpetrators and enablers accountable. Our work focuses on the enforcement of victims' rights within campus, administrative, civil, and criminal processes. Survjustice also empowers activists who seek systematic change in their communities by providing resources and guidance. We offer a variety of comprehensive trainings as well as policy development for institutions responding to sexual violence, working on all fronts to decrease the prevalence of sexual violence. Survjustice is featured as a national resource on notalone.gov launched by the white house task force on protecting students from sexual assault.

What it reported doing in 2015

Legal assistance for survivors: survjustice will file administrative complaints for free on behalf of survivors, including: title ix, clery act & ferpa complaints. Survjustice also offers reduced fee legal services for advocacy and direct representation via campus hearings, the criminal justice system and civil law suits.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 77% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Member-benefit provider. The nonprofit used 89% of its reported program spending for member benefits.

The verdict

REVIEW - The filed numbers largely add up and revenue comfortably covers expenses. 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: 67
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 3.4%; rating input score 3
  • Program expense ratio: 5.1%; rating input score 5

Transparency & Controls

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

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 34.1%; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.55; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 26.8%; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • Where the money goes: 3.4% of revenue deployed · 5.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 4 filed program accomplishments · $6K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 9 of 9 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 3/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 5/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 44/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 14/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.