The Seattle School of Theology & Psychology

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
912037146
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Seattle, WA, USA
Phone
2068766100
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Graduate, Professional Schools (Separate Entities)

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$7,283,205
Expenses
$8,215,590
Assets
$4,627,334
Liabilities
$2,747,340

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

Leadership & pay

17 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JAMES DEREK MCNEIL (PRESIDENT & PROVOST)

Highest reported compensation

  • DAN ALLENDER (CO-FOUNDER, THE ALLENDER CENTER): $185,874 total reported compensation
  • GENE J KIM (VP OF ADMIN. & FINANCE/SECRETARY): $172,766 total reported compensation
  • JAMES DEREK MCNEIL (PRESIDENT & PROVOST): $172,725 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The mission of the seattle school of theology & psychology is to train people to become competent in the study of text, soul, and culture in order to serve god and neighbors through transforming relationships.

What it reported doing in 2024

The allender center at the seattle school provides a certificate program in our narrative focused trauma care method, trauma care healing workshops and conferences, and online courses to the general public. Annually the allender center serves approximately 260 certificate participants, 250 workshop participants, 2,000 conference participants, and 800 online course enrollees.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 81% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 98% 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

SUPPORTED - 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 expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 65
  • Transparency & Controls: 80
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 17
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 75.2%; rating input score 75
  • Program expense ratio: 67%; rating input score 67
  • Fundraising efficiency: $3.68 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.4%; rating input score 94; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 96.5%; rating input score 97; 31st 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 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -12.8%; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.56; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.59; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 9.3%; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 3.6% per year; rating input score 100; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4% per year; rating input score 100; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6.4% per year; rating input score 100; 42nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 75.2% of revenue deployed · 67% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $5.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $186K · 17 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 36 of 37 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 11/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 11/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 20/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 17/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 32/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.