The Social Security Institute

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
200633952
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2012
Forms available
Form 990 2012
Location
The Plains, VA, USA
Phone
5402535577
Rating confidence
Limited
Sector
Senior Citizens' Housing/Retirement Communities

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$913,620
Expenses
$1,017,095
Assets
$120,840
Liabilities
$546,249

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2012. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2012. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The social security institute is dedicated to educating the public and advocating reform of the social security program and other related programs such as the social security earnings test, the social security benefits tax, personal retirement accounts and other issues and programs related to the senior citizens.

What it reported doing in 2012

Working to promote the retirement security of today's seniors and seniors of tomorrow. The organization's top policy priorities are to stop the raid on the social security trust funds, prevent cuts to social security and medicare benefits and protect seniors from health care rationing and other limitations on their access to health care.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 96% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

- The available evidence is not sufficient to produce an overall rating for this filing. This is not a warning sign.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: NotEnoughData
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Accountability: 55
  • Sustainability: 15
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: Limited
  • Program expense ratio: Limited
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 66.7%; rating input score 67; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -11.3%; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.12; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 4.52; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5.9%; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: -30.7% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -5.6% per year; rating input score 0; 20th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
  • Governance: 2 of 3 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $521K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $60K · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 27 of 27 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2011 to 2012
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.

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.

  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 14/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 6/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 1/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 54/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.