Swerve Robotics Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
822238297
IRS 990 coverage
2024–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2023, Form 990-N 2017
Location
Woodinville, WA, USA
Phone
4253182114
Rating
81
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Amateur Sports Competitions

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$110,689
Expenses
$124,344
Assets
$117,487
Liabilities
$11,999

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SARA JONES (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • SHAWN MCMANUS (PRESIDENT)
  • DAVID ALEXANDER (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • SARA JONES (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $36,890 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Swerve robotics promotes lifelong intellectual growth opportunities to students by providing access to science, technology, engineering, and math (stem) through first robotic competitions and other related activities. The programs assist youth and volunteer staff, through informal education, to acquire knowledge and develop life skills and values that enable them to become increasingly self-directing, productive, contributing citizens. Our youth participate in robotics competitions such as first tech challenge, first lego challenge and first lego explorer, where they have opportunities to have fun while developing 21st century skills that employers are looking for such as problem solving, conflict resolution, persistence, time management and communication.

What it reported doing in 2024

Support of first technology challenge teams (ftc): we maintain two teams made up of 12 students each supported by a volunteer coach and three mentors. The team is also supported by the swerve robotics board and executive director. The students are taught engineering skills and how to make decisions beyond engineering. The program teaches them about teamwork and how to engage other students and adults while building a robot to compete in various challenges. The teams have access to a shop that has industrial machining equipment and office space for collaboration. The shop is an in-kind donation from a private benefactor. 24 students served. Teams meet three times a week during the season, and four times a week leading up to competitions. The season typically runs from september to april. Competitions organized through the state and national first program: the first three competitions are guaranteed events. The final two competitions are qualification events. League 1: november. League 2: december. Interleague: february. Washington state championship: march. World championship: april. Swerve robotics coordinates mock competitions for teams in the area before and during the league time frame.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 67% 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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 80
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 25
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 90.9%; rating input score 91
  • Program expense ratio: 79.9%; rating input score 80
  • Fundraising efficiency: $6.41 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -12.3%; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.94; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.1; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 29.7%; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 4.2% per year; rating input score 100; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.3% per year; rating input score 100; 48th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 90.9% of revenue deployed · 79.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $99K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $37K · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 23 of 23 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 28/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 20/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 39/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 11/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 26/100.