The Soldiers Project
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 272815356
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2013–2017
- Forms available
- Form 990 2017
- Location
- North Hollywood, CA, USA
- Phone
- 8187617438
- Rating
- 67
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Mental Health Treatment F31 Psychiatric, Mental Health Hospital
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $587,876
- Expenses
- $558,179
- Assets
- $309,619
- Liabilities
- $14,921
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
10 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- PAUL MCGRAW COLONEL USMC RET (PRESIDENT AND CO-CHAIR)
- ANDREA SCHMITT (INTERIM EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
- MICHAEL S MCDOWELL (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- MICHAEL S MCDOWELL (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $58,231 total reported compensation
- ANDREA SCHMITT (INTERIM EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $38,135 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The soldiers project is committed to providing a safety net of psychological care for military service members and their loved ones, as well as educating the general public on how the psychological consequences of war affect both those who serve and their loved ones at home and in our communities. Tsp provides free, confidential professional psychological counseling services to those who have served in our nation's military after september 11, 2001.
What it reported doing in 2017
Mental health services help provided to military service memebers and their families struggling with issues related to the overwhelming trauma of war including the cycle from pre-deployment to deployment to homecoming and re-entry into civilian life.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 100% 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 the required major-donor schedule is missing or incomplete.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 56
- Transparency & Controls: 69
- Accountability: 95
- Sustainability: 43
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 58.6%; rating input score 59
- Program expense ratio: 61.7%; rating input score 62
- Fundraising efficiency: $5.51 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 12th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: Limited
- Major donor itemization: No; rating input score 0
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- 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: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 5.1%; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.55; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.05; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 17.3%; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -5.3% per year; rating input score 0; 14th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 2.5% per year; rating input score 100; 39th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 11% per year; rating input score 100; 70th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 58.6% of revenue deployed · 61.7% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $344K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $58K · 10 people listed
- Consistency: 26 of 27 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes major donors
- Filing history: 5 filing years from 2013 to 2017
- 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.
Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 59/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Major donor itemization scored 0/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 22/100.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 54/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 29/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 16/100.
- High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.