The Rural School and Community Trust

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
561924246
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2015
Forms available
Form 990 2015
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
2028223919
Rating
88
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Fund Raising and/or Fund Distribution

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$756,461
Expenses
$970,624
Assets
$881,799
Liabilities
$32,516

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • ROBERT MAHAFFEY (EXEC. DIR. AS OF 12/26/15): $91,890 total reported compensation
  • DORIS TERRY WILLIAMS (EXEC. DIR. UNTIL MAY 2015): $69,308 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To help rural schools and communities grow better together by involving young people in place-based learning linked to community and economic development; conducting research and advocating for appropriate educational policies and equitable funding for rural schools; improving rural access to highly effective educators; and increasing rural capacity to design, implement, and support appropriate innovations.

What it reported doing in 2015

Policy/environment: seeks to understand and illuminate the public policy issues that affect the ability of rural communities to develop and operate schools that meet the needs of rural students and contribute to the well-being of the communities themselves. The program also seeks to inform the general public, policy-makers, rural schools, and the communities and their members how to become more effective in public policy deliberation. The program's advocacy, research, and publications focus on four major issues: standards and assessments; educational equity; school facilities; and school governance. This program had no activity during the year ended june 30, 2016.

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 42% for direct work, and 58% for grants.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 97
  • Transparency & Controls: 94
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 25
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 92.1%; rating input score 92
  • Fundraising efficiency: $92,745.25 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 100; 100th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 74th 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: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -28.3%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.91; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.04; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 16.6%; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -94.4% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -13.1% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -42.3% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 92.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $894K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $92K · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 29 of 29 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2011 to 2015
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 7 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 5 filed related-organization links
  • 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 — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 5/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 44/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 17/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.