Scarecrow Video

Legal name: SV Archive

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
471050656
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Seattle, WA, US
Phone
206-524-8554
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Film, Video

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,671,814
Expenses
$1,177,134
Assets
$840,822
Liabilities
$484,208

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Erin Kathleen Barr (President/Treasurer (2024))
  • Jonathan Marlow (Executive Director)
  • Lacey Leavitt Gray (President/Treasurer (Current))
  • Karl Woelfer (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Erin Kathleen Barr (President/Treasurer (2024)): $54,064 total reported compensation
  • Jonathan Marlow (Executive Director): $3,846 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To keep Scarecrow’s legendary collection completely publicly-accessible and help preserve this irreplaceable cultural archive for future generations.

What it reported doing in 2024

Scarecrow Video strives to be a resource to everyone and serves approximately 15,000 people annually through low cost rentals and free public programs: Silver Screeners Cinema, Scarecrow Academy, Zeitgeist Lecture Series and Movies in the Park.Scarecrow Videos patron base covers 97% of King County and beyond, and includes constituents from a broad range of income, age and cultures.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 63% 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

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 fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 52
  • Transparency & Controls: 86
  • Accountability: 78
  • Sustainability: 57
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 47.8%; rating input score 48
  • Program expense ratio: 67.8%; rating input score 68
  • Fundraising efficiency: $7 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 88.9%; rating input score 89; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 29.6%; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.71; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.58; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.9%; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 2.2% per year; rating input score 100; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8.3% per year; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 20.7% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 2 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 47.8% of revenue deployed · 67.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 9 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $798K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $54K · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 28 of 29 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2015 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 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.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 48/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 27/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 32/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule G fundraiser detail did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 13/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 53/100.