West Side Ecumenical Ministry

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
237034175
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2016
Forms available
Form 990 2016
Location
Cleveland, OH, USA
Phone
2164327200
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Community, Neighborhood Development

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,628,300
Expenses
$2,611,812
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Elizabeth Newman (President & Chief Executive Officer)

Highest reported compensation

  • Elizabeth Newman (President & Chief Executive Officer): $300,204 total reported compensation
  • James Penman (Chief Strategy Officer): $190,555 total reported compensation
  • Bernadette Kerrigan (Chief Talent Officer(until Feb 2016)): $145,326 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

We believe lasting, positive change begins with access to opportunities.We bridge the opportunity gap by connecting as many people as possible to effective health care, education and essential human services.We believe: - Poverty can no longer be permitted to be a predictor of a person's success. - Everyone deserves hope, dignity and purpose. - Everyone should have the chance to build a better future. - Key to success is access to the right opportunities, relationships, resources and networks. - It's possible to break out of individual and intergenerational cycles of poverty. - Successful communities embrace diversity and inclusion as a competitive advantage.

What it reported doing in 2016

Food CentersWSEM operated three food centers providing emergency provisions and other food supplies to many individuals in 2016. They also link clients to important support services-food stamp enrollment assistance, referrals to community resources such as child care services, behavioral health services, public assistance, health screenings, etc. for overall well being.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 89
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 91
  • Sustainability: 28
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 88.2%; rating input score 88
  • Program expense ratio: 88.8%; rating input score 89
  • Fundraising efficiency: $692.98 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: 0.6%; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 1.6%; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -14.9% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -11.1% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -14.9% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 88.2% of revenue deployed · 88.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 3 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $2.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $300K · 7 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 29 of 29 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, executive pay, and related organizations
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2010 to 2016
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • Related organizations: 2 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 39/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.