Attach to Form 990 or Form 990-EZ.
Information about Schedule A (Form 990 or 990-EZ) and its instructions is at www.irs.gov/form990.
| (i)Name of supported organization | (ii) EIN | (iii) Type of organization (described on lines 1- 9 above (see instructions)) | (iv) Is the organization listed in your governing document? | (v) Amount of monetary support (see instructions) | (vi) Amount of other support (see instructions) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | No | |||||
| Total | ||||||
Calendar year (or fiscal year beginning in) ![]() |
(a) 2011 | (b) 2012 | (c) 2013 | (d) 2014 | (e) 2015 | (f) Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Gifts, grants, contributions, and membership fees received. (Do not include any unusual grants.) .... | 2,074,069 | 615,125 | 566,209 | 1,470,664 | 6,696,000 | 11,422,067 |
| 2 | Tax revenues levied for the organization's benefit and either paid to or expended on its behalf....... | 0 | |||||
| 3 | The value of services or facilities furnished by a governmental unit to the organization without charge.. | 0 | |||||
| 4 | Total. Add lines 1 through 3 | 2,074,069 | 615,125 | 566,209 | 1,470,664 | 6,696,000 | 11,422,067 |
| 5 | The portion of total contributions by each person (other than a governmental unit or publicly supported organization) included on line 1 that exceeds 2% of the amount shown on line 11, column (f).. | 7,228,911 | |||||
| 6 | Public support. Subtract line 5 from line 4. | 4,193,156 | |||||
Calendar year
(or fiscal year beginning in) ![]() |
(a) 2011 | (b) 2012 | (c) 2013 | (d) 2014 | (e) 2015 | (f) Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7 | Amounts from line 4.. | 2,074,069 | 615,125 | 566,209 | 1,470,664 | 6,696,000 | 11,422,067 |
| 8 | Gross income from interest, dividends, payments received on securities loans, rents, royalties and income from similar sources... | 831,459 | 713,751 | 558,548 | 557,185 | 514,925 | 3,175,868 |
| 9 | Net income from unrelated business activities, whether or not the business is regularly carried on.. | ||||||
| 10 | Other income. Do not include gain or loss from the sale of capital assets (Explain in Part VI.).. | 70 | 12,163 | 1,061 | 13,294 | ||
| 11 | Total support. Add lines 7 through 10. | 14,611,229 | |||||
Calendar year (or fiscal year beginning in) ![]() |
(a) 2011 | (b) 2012 | (c) 2013 | (d) 2014 | (e) 2015 | (f) Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Gifts, grants, contributions, and membership fees received. (Do not include any "unusual grants.") . | ||||||
| 2 | Gross receipts from admissions, merchandise sold or services performed, or facilities furnished in any activity that is related to the organization's tax-exempt purpose...... | ||||||
| 3 | Gross receipts from activities that are not an unrelated trade or business under section 513... | ||||||
| 4 | Tax revenues levied for the organization's benefit and either paid to or expended on its behalf... | ||||||
| 5 | The value of services or facilities furnished by a governmental unit to the organization without charge.. | ||||||
| 6 | Total. Add lines 1 through 5. | ||||||
| 7a | Amounts included on lines 1, 2, and 3 received from disqualified persons... | ||||||
| b | Amounts included on lines 2 and 3 received from other than disqualified persons that exceed the greater of $5,000 or 1% of the amount on line 13 for the year. | ||||||
| c | Add lines 7a and 7b.. | ||||||
| 8 | Public support. (Subtract line 7c from line 6.) | ||||||
Calendar year (or fiscal year beginning in) ![]() |
(a) 2011 | (b) 2012 | (c) 2013 | (d) 2014 | (e) 2015 | (f) Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 9 | Amounts from line 6... | ||||||
| 10a | Gross income from interest, dividends, payments received on securities loans, rents, royalties and income from similar sources.. | ||||||
| b | Unrelated business taxable income (less section 511 taxes) from businesses acquired after June 30, 1975. | ||||||
| c | Add lines 10a and 10b. | ||||||
| 11 | Net income from unrelated business activities not included in line 10b, whether or not the business is regularly carried on. | ||||||
| 12 | Other income. Do not include gain or loss from the sale of capital assets (Explain in Part VI.) .. | ||||||
| 13 | Total support. (Add lines 9, 10c, 11, and 12.).. | ||||||
| Section A - Adjusted Net Income | (A) Prior Year |
(B) Current Year (optional) |
||||
| 1 | Net short-term capital gain | 1 | ||||
| 2 | Recoveries of prior-year distributions | 2 | ||||
| 3 | Other gross income (see instructions) | 3 | ||||
| 4 | Add lines 1 through 3 | 4 | ||||
| 5 | Depreciation and depletion | 5 | ||||
| 6 | Portion of operating expenses paid or incurred for production or collection of gross income or for management, conservation, or maintenance of property held for production of income (see instructions) | 6 | ||||
| 7 | Other expenses (see instructions) | 7 | ||||
| 8 | Adjusted Net Income (subtract lines 5, 6 and 7 from line 4) | 8 | ||||
| Section B - Minimum Asset Amount | (A) Prior Year |
(B) Current Year (optional) |
||||
| 1 | Aggregate fair market value of all non-exempt-use assets (see instructions for short tax year or assets held for part of year): | 1 | ||||
| a | Average monthly value of securities | 1a | ||||
| b | Average monthly cash balances | 1b | ||||
| c | Fair market value of other non-exempt-use assets | 1c | ||||
| d | Total (add lines 1a, 1b, and 1c) | 1d | ||||
| e |
Discount claimed for blockage or other factors (explain in detail in Part VI): |
|||||
| 2 | Acquisition indebtedness applicable to non-exempt use assets | 2 | ||||
| 3 | Subtract line 2 from line 1d | 3 | ||||
| 4 | Cash deemed held for exempt use. Enter 1-1/2% of line 3 (for greater amount, see instructions). | 4 | ||||
| 5 | Net value of non-exempt-use assets (subtract line 4 from line 3) | 5 | ||||
| 6 | Multiply line 5 by .035 | 6 | ||||
| 7 | Recoveries of prior-year distributions | 7 | ||||
| 8 | Minimum Asset Amount (add line 7 to line 6) | 8 | ||||
| Section C - Distributable Amount | Current Year | |||||
| 1 | Adjusted net income for prior year (from Section A, line 8, Column A) | 1 | ||||
| 2 | Enter 85% of line 1 | 2 | ||||
| 3 | Minimum asset amount for prior year (from Section B, line 8, Column A) | 3 | ||||
| 4 | Enter greater of line 2 or line 3 | 4 | ||||
| 5 | Income tax imposed in prior year | 5 | ||||
| 6 | Distributable Amount. Subtract line 5 from line 4, unless subject to emergency temporary reduction (see instructions) | 6 | ||||
| Section D - Distributions | Current Year | |
|---|---|---|
| 1 Amounts paid to supported organizations to accomplish exempt purposes | ||
|
2
Amounts paid to perform activity that directly furthers exempt purposes of supported organizations, in excess of income from activity |
||
| 3 Administrative expenses paid to accomplish exempt purposes of supported organizations | ||
| 4 Amounts paid to acquire exempt-use assets | ||
| 5 Qualified set-aside amounts (prior IRS approval required) | ||
| 6 Other distributions (describe in Part VI). See instructions | ||
| 7Total annual distributions. Add lines 1 through 6. | ||
|
8
Distributions to attentive supported organizations to which the organization is responsive (provide details in Part VI). See instructions |
||
| 9 Distributable amount for 2015 from Section C, line 6 | ||
| 10 Line 8 amount divided by Line 9 amount | ||
| Section E - Distribution Allocations (see instructions) |
(i) Excess Distributions |
(ii) Underdistributions Pre-2015 |
(iii) Distributable Amount for 2015 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
1
Distributable amount for 2015 from Section C, line 6 |
||||
|
2
Underdistributions, if any, for years prior to 2015 (reasonable cause required--see instructions) |
||||
| 3 Excess distributions carryover, if any, to 2015: | ||||
| a | ||||
| b | ||||
| c | ||||
| d From 2013....... | ||||
| e From 2014....... | ||||
| fTotal of lines 3a through e | ||||
| g Applied to underdistributions of prior years | ||||
| h Applied to 2015 distributable amount | ||||
|
i
Carryover from 2010 not applied (see instructions) |
||||
| j Remainder. Subtract lines 3g, 3h, and 3i from 3f. | ||||
| 4Distributions for 2015 from Section D, line 7: | ||||
| $ | ||||
| a Applied to underdistributions of prior years | ||||
| b Applied to 2015 distributable amount | ||||
| c Remainder. Subtract lines 4a and 4b from 4. | ||||
|
5
Remaining underdistributions for years prior to 2015, if any. Subtract lines 3g and 4a from line 2 (if amount greater than zero, see instructions) |
||||
|
6
Remaining underdistributions for 2015. Subtract lines 3h and 4b from line 1 (if amount greater than zero, see instructions) |
||||
|
7 Excess distributions carryover to 2016. Add lines 3j and 4c. |
||||
| 8 Breakdown of line 7: | ||||
| a | ||||
| b | ||||
| c Excess from 2013....... | ||||
| d From 2014....... | ||||
| e From 2015....... | ||||
| Facts And Circumstances Test |
|---|
| Return Reference | Explanation |
|---|---|
| PART II, LINE 17A | While Southern Education Foundation, Inc. ("Foundation") failed to meet the mechanical "one-third of support" test in 2015, it clearly satisfied the alternative "facts and circumstances" test outlined in section 1.170A-9(f)(3) of the Treasury Regulations. Specifically, the two required factors are present in this case: 1. The organization must receive at least 10% of its support in the form of public support. As noted in Schedule A to Form 990, in 2015 the Foundation received approximately 28.69% of its total support in the form of public support - an amount far in excess of the 10% threshold. 2. The organization must have an active "continuous and bona fide" fundraising program designed to attract new and additional public support. The Foundation carried on an active and aggressive program of public solicitation in 2015 and raised over $6,600,000 from more than a dozen different sources. In addition, all of the "favorable factors" described in the tax regulations relevant to non-membership organizations are present in this case: 1. The higher the percentage of support above 10%, the lesser the burden of the organization in establishing that it is publicly supported. In this case, the Foundation's public support percentage is substantially above 10%. (The Foundation nearly satisfied the mechanical "one-third" test.) 2. The organization receives support from a representative number of persons rather than from members of a single family or from a limited base of support. Over the years, the Foundation has attracted contributions from a large and varied number of sources, including dozens of the nation's most well-known and respected charities. 3. The composition of the organization's governing body is representative of broad public interests. The Foundation's Board of Directors has a diverse membership which includes foundation executives, community leaders, and persons with special expertise in education. Its governing body represents the interests of the larger public rather than the personal or private interests of a limited number of donors. 4. The organization conducts programs and activities that are available to and that appeal to the general public. (The fact that a research or educational organization conducts scholarly studies which are used by educators or the general public is evidence of public support.) The Foundation conducts analyses of education issues, trends, and possibilities and disseminates the data in accessible formats to the lay public and to policy makers. Additionally, through its website, conferences, and direct dissemination of its publications, the Foundation provides essential information to the public about educational problems and solutions. In sum, the facts and circumstances in this case clearly demonstrate broad public support for, and interest and involvement in, the Foundation's mission and programs. Therefore, the Foundation continues to qualify as a "publicly supported charity" described in sections 509(a)(1) and 170(b)(1)(A)(vi) of the Internal Revenue Code. |
| Software ID: | |
| Software Version: |
Attach to Form 990 or 990-EZ.
Information about Schedule O (Form 990 or 990-EZ) and its instructions is at| Return Reference | Explanation |
|---|---|
| PART III, LINE 4A (1) | CONTINUED FROM FORM 990, PART III, LINE 4A Promoting Early Learning Opportunities: Decades of studying the link between poverty and education have confirmed for SEF, high quality early childhood programs may be the single best investment for getting young children, especially the new majority of low income students in the South, to be school-ready and succeed. Early childhood education leaders are under tremendous pressure to show they are making the most of public monies and putting funds toward high quality centers with proven strategies for increasing student outcomes. States have in response implemented higher credentialing standards for their workforce, instituted systems for evaluating and ranking center quality in both public and for-profit spaces, and developed systems for creating state curriculum standards. In some states this takes the form of voluntary and/or mandated center participation in Quality Rated Improvements Systems to receive public funds. And in even more advanced states, kindergarten entry assessments have been instituted to better inform these accountability efforts as well as make adjustments to K-12 curriculum. Our Strategy: 1. Providing research, technical assistance and tools: uncovering early education trends, impact, and best practices in financing and aligning early education systems (birth-to-eight) stakeholders can use for informing policymaking decisions; 2. Creating opportunity for cross-state collaboration: sharing information related to strategies for equitably raising the quality of early learning systems without lowering access; and 3. Building community awareness and support: bringing new partners to the table and ensuring current stakeholders and allies are working more strategically together. Goal: Increase access to high-quality early learning opportunities for all students. 2015 Activities and Outcomes: 1. Convened with the Annie E. Caseys Grade Level Reading Campaign, forty early childhood education experts from five Southern states (Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina) to discuss barriers and opportunities for developing a regional strategy to expand early learning opportunity for children ages birth-to-eight; and 2. Participated on the Georgia Department of Early Care and Learning Family Engagement State Task Force and on South Carolinas Early Childhood Education Policy Task Force. The focus of both efforts was to think long-term about how to expand access to high quality early education programming for the most vulnerable populations in our region. Advancing Public Education: The Advancing Public Educations program area strives to advance equity and excellence in public education for the most marginalized students in our country. Nowhere is the need for effective and equitable public education more critical than in the American South. In this region, where low income students and students of color are the new majority and where immigration patterns present new challenges and opportunities, the irony is that disinvestment in public education and a push to privatize education threaten the assimilation of these new citizens and the full participation of this new majority in the regions civic and economic affairs. Our Strategy: 1. Informing and supporting public education campaigns across the South, to help engage, connect, and align diverse coalitions within and across states to employ multi-strategy approaches to advance public education; 2. Regionalizing efforts through policy research and communications efforts, to help marshal evidence about what works in the region and strengthen the public education narrative; and 3. Advancing new designs for teaching and learning, so as to create environments where defensive battles can become offensive ones that shift from simply protecting public education to re-envisioning public education systems that support all children. Goal: Improve understanding of and constituency for high-quality public schools in the South. The work to defend public education is ongoing and we have seen some positive trends in holding the line across the region. But this is long term work that depends, among other things, on building and supporting coalitions that alter the power dynamics shaping public policy across the region. SEF uses the term advancing public education deliberately because our goal is to not only defend but to surface and promote evidence-based recommendations for improving learning outcomes for children and youth. We know its important that policymakers see examples of policies and practices that are working. It is even more important that such examples have been informed and are supported by our partners within the region. Out of all our strategies in 2015 in advancing public education, what probably stood out as most successful was our work in surfacing and promoting evidence-based recommendations with key Southern partners on the ground. We produced an update in our New Diverse Majority series, which since 2007 has outlined demographic shifts of our public school students in the region and the implications of those shifts on our public schools. Our first report in the series found that low income students in the Souths public schools had become a majority, and in 2010, found that low income students and students of color made up a majority of the Souths public schools. While these reports put statistics behind the assumption that the South is poorer than the rest of the country, we warned that the South is what the nation is becoming. In 2015, our update found that the nations public school students were now a majority low income. This report produced much media attention and helped to foster dialogue across the country about what this new majority means for our public schools whether they are equipped to serve these students, and what do we need to do to ensure that they are? Staff presented this report for a range of audiences across the region and the country throughout the year, taking the opportunity to raise up these questions. We released an infographic video about this new majority, and how the diversion of public money for private schools in the region undermines efforts to resource public schools to serve all students well, with more than 15 organizations signed on to and with nearly 3000 views since its release. The video has been used by groups both in-and-out of the state to push back against voucher or tax credit scholarship proposals. In late 2015, we also worked with the Annenberg Institute for Public School Reform and our partners on the ground in Georgia on the development of a report, Investing in What Works, providing a framework of a vision for strong public schools in the state. The report outlines models from Kentucky, Cincinnati, and from within Georgia, too. This report was released at a press conference attended by community partners and was endorsed by the AASA national superintendent of the year, Dr. Philip Lanoue from Clarke County Public Schools, among others. |
| PART III, LINE 4A (2) | Other Key Activities and Outcomes of the year: 1. As members of the Education Justice Network (EJN) we worked to highlight specific Southern issues that should impact national efforts, such as the momentum behind community schools. We interviewed key experts in the education justice movement to address outstanding questions about what may be missing from the community schools model, metrics to define and measure community schools, and particular Southern questions about how the community schools movement interacts with the re-segregation of public schools and the continued fight to integrate. 2. We organized with the Alliance to Reclaim Our Schools (AROS) networks and the Freedom Side (a collective of young leaders of color across the country inspired by the 1964 Freedom Summer) a learning session to dive deeply into the historical moment of Mississippi. Young leaders, labor and community advocates from across the country came together to learn about the history of social justice work from Courtland Cox, SNCC veteran, Jeanne Middleton-Hairston, historian Derrick Johnson, current MS NAACP president, and others and how this history has informed the work today. Critical to the work then, just as now, was the ability to build broad, interracial, intergenerational coalitions and movements. Lifting up the lessons learned from these conversations to a national level has also been part of our work. 3. In Mississippi, SEF supported the efforts of the Better Schools Better Jobs Campaign to make fully funded education a reality for all of the states students. SEFs primary role was conducting a series of interviews with stakeholders in Mississippi throughout the year to draw out lessons learned from building such coalitions in support of public education, which we are shared with our partners across the region and country. We also ensured the ballot campaign was discussed at key national public education and philanthropy conferences. 4. In Georgia and North Carolina, we supported state-level, cross-sector coalition building efforts focused on school climate and the effects of punitive disciplinary measures, particularly on students of color. In Georgia, the coalition we are engaged in held an equity summit of state agency and district leadership, along with parents and advocates, to address race and implicit bias in schools. In North Carolina, SEF supported advocates in organizing a convening to develop a collective agenda around improving school discipline data collection, publication, and policy reform. 5. SEF supported the development of a regional deans work group with the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP) to discuss how to prepare new teachers in promoting positive school climates for all students. We also convened deans from the largest teacher preparation programs in Georgia with the Georgia Department of Education and other lead agencies to discuss trends in school discipline and how higher education might improve. 6. We hosted a webinar with the Z. Smith Reynolds Foundation on their 2015 statewide survey of voters perceptions of public education. The results show that North Carolina voters strongly value their local public schools, support greater investments in overall funding, and want more investment in teachers. The most recent survey shows great concern that state education policy and funding are undermining the public's desire to ensure that each child is challenged to grow and is prepared for success in college, career and life. While this poll was exclusively of NC voters, we think the results are certainly relevant for our regional and national partners, and we made its findings available to our network. 7. SEF, along with the Coalition for Community Schools, NEA, the Center for Popular Democracy, and community partners, took a trip to Kentucky to see first-hand their community schools model. We then hosted a webinar to share our learnings, and invited panelists from Kentucky that included policy advocates to school-based coordinators of these Centers. The webinar attracted over 200 registrants, including advocates, practitioners, and state policymakers, and has resulted in some Southern groups requesting to work more closely on the Kentucky model. 8. We worked with several national networks to lift up the Souths challenges as well as attract more resources to the region. These networks included the Education Justice Network, the Alliance to Reclaim Our Schools, and the Partners for Each and Every Child (designed to advance the recommendations of the 2013 Equity and Excellence Commission). 9. Finally, in terms of our national partners, we worked with Partners for Each and Every Child (PEEC) to invest some of their initial efforts in two Southern states, Georgia and Mississippi, particularly around the educator equity plans that SEAs were required to submit to the US Department of Education in 2015. These educator equity plan efforts helped to get additional stakeholder voices reflected in each of the plans in the two states. Improving College Access and Completion: The economic and social returns for a post-secondary credential are indisputable. SEFs higher education efforts are designed to address a range of issues that influence student success and degree attainment among low-income and minority students. With a focus on the post-secondary institutions most likely to serve these students, SEF takes up critical issues known to influence their participation and completion in higher education. Our Strategy: 1. Examining and report on policies that impact participation, retention, and degree completion; 2. Establishing demonstration projects that serve as laboratories for testing innovative practices that hold the promise of increasing degree completion; 3. Convening institutional leaders and university trustees to share evidence-based practices that increase institutional effectiveness; and 4. Providing technical assistance and capacity building to institutions to enhance program effectiveness and student learning outcomes. Goal: Identify, test, and advance policies and practices that increase student success in higher education. In 2015, as in years before, SEFs Improving College Access and Completion program area focused on implementing programs designed to assist Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) and other Minority Serving Institutions (MSIs) in improving institutional effectiveness and student success. Much of our activity concentrated on working with institutions through the MSI Consortium for Innovation and Change designed to highlight and support state-of-the-art initiatives that promise to improve institutional practices and outcomes for students. Through the Consortium, SEF aims to promote innovative and effective practices by testing existing programs, performing campus demonstrations, and assessing the effectiveness of promising academic interventions. 2015 Activities and Outcomes: 1. Engaged a group of 13 Historically Black Colleges and Universities in a study of institutional effectiveness. The purpose of the study was to identify the issues related to capacity and institutional practice that contribute to overall campus effectiveness and to understand what, and how an initiative could support effectiveness of the group of HBCUs receiving direct support from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation. 2. Released the research brief, Building your Assessment Toolkit, focused on strengthening assessment of student learning. 3. Engaged five Minority-Serving Institutions to test the efficacy of developmental education interventions as part of the MSI Consortium for Innovation and Change. Southern Education Leadership Initiative: The Southern Education Leadership Initiative was developed 12 years ago to mark the 50th anniversary of the United States Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education, the decision that broke the spine of legalized segregation in public education. The belief was there remains work to be done in fulfilling the promise of Brown and in ensuring that all children, irrespective of race, class, gender and national origin, receive an excellent education. Since 2004, SEF has provided approximately 185 students this leadership development opportunity to work on education equity issues throughout the South. Through SELI, talented and diverse young leaders have conducted important research, policy analysis, advocacy, and organizing efforts for nearly 85 Southern nonprofits and foundations. In terms of SEFs programmatic efforts, SELI is one of the longest-standing initiatives in the Foundations recent history, and is not just important to the students and organizations partnering on this effort, but informs all of SEFs programmatic efforts. |
| PART III, LINE 4A (3) | Goal: Empower the next generation of innovators, thinkers and leaders to become more effective change agents in education. In 2015, SEF provided a diverse group of eight outstanding undergraduate and graduate level students fellowships across the region. The SELI summer began in late May with a three-day Orientation held in Atlanta, Georgia where fellows engaged and dialogued with outstanding sector leadership through panels and small work group activities. Fellows examined regional education policy trends from pk-16, the history of public education finance in the American South, and explored various strategies for improving public education policy and practice. They then worked full-time for eight weeks at their placement sites under the supervision of leading activists. Fellows researched ways to incorporate mental health services and wrap arounds supports into public schools in Georgia, contributed to research studies and publications focused on improving developmental education opportunities at minority serving institutions; examined school finance and financial aid trends in Georgia, assessed the impact of laws passed during Texas legislative session on Latino and English as a Second Language students, conducted intensive training, research, organizing, communications and analysis for mentoring programs within Miami, Florida juvenile detentions centers; developed research on poverty and community schools across the Southern region, supported cross-sector coalitions to address South Carolinas school-to-prison pipeline; developed communications tools and resources to support advocates and organizers across the South working on education justice issues, and developed strategic plans for improving early childhood education access and equity with community groups in rural Arkansas. At the end of the summer, the fellows were brought back to a Closing Meeting in Atlanta where they formally presented on what they had been working on, and the lessons they learned from this experience. The focus of the meeting was to hear about the projects they worked on over the summer, but also provide a space for fellows to think about how they can carry on this mantle of making change in education in their own communities and states. Students were assigned to panels based on the kinds of projects they worked on over the summer and asked to develop their session as a way of encouraging them to better understand each others projects and organizations. As with the Orientation, ample time was provided for students to work in small groups and map out individually their thoughts on achieving education equity for all children and youth in the region. We also provide time to view inspiring films and visited museums and historical landmarks in Atlanta that included the National Center for Civil and Human Rights and Ebenezer Baptist Church. 2015 Activities and Outcomes: 1. Celebrated the 11 year anniversary of SELI. 2. Provided paid summer fellowships to 8 upper-level undergraduates and graduate level students, who worked on a range of education equity issues across 6 southern states. 3. Provided intensive pre- and post- internship trainings. 4. Secured funding for SELI to continue in 2016 and 2017. Clearly, the Southern Education Foundation through these numerous efforts, has endeavored to carry out a work plan demonstrably in the public interest. |
| PART VI, LINE 11A | The 990 is reviewed by the Finance, Audit, and Administration Committee, the CEO and the CFO. After all questions and concerns are addressed a copy of the 990 is presented to each Board member and the 990 is then filed. |
| PART VI, LINE 12C | Annually, each Trustee and SEF staff member execute a disclosure form identifying any relationships, positions or circumstances in which he/she is involved that could contribute to a real or perceived conflict of interest. Any information regarding business interest of a Trustee is treated as confidential and is generally made available to the Chair, the President, and any committee appointed to address conflicts of interest, except to the extent additional disclosure is necessary in connection with the implementation of this policy. Trustees do not vote on any matter in which they believe there is duality of interest and may, if asked, be called upon to share with fellow Trustees such information related to the duality of interest as may be necessary and appropriate. The minutes of Board meetings will show that the Trustee having a duality of interest disclosed same and abstained from voting on related matters. A copy of this policy is furnished to each person who is or becomes a member of the Board of Trustees or staff. Each such person is required to review a copy of this policy and acknowledge in writing that he or she has done so. |
| PART VI, LINE 15 | IN ORDER TO DETERMINE STAFF COMPENSATION LEVELS FOR ITS SMALL STAFF AND CONSERVATIVE MODEST RESOURCES, SEF CONSULTS SOURCES SUCH AS THE ANNUAL COMPENSATION SURVEY PUBLISHED BY THE COUNCIL ON FOUNDATIONS, REPORTS IN THE CHRONICLE OF PHILANTHROPY, AND THE CHRONICLE OF HIGHER EDUCATION, RATHER THAN HIRING INDEPENDENT CONSULTANTS TO CONDUCT DETAILED COMPENSATION SURVEYS AND AUDITS. SEF BOARD MEMBERS AND STAFF, AS APPROPRIATE, ALSO CONSULT WITH PEER ORGANIZATIONS TO ASCERTAIN APPROPRIATE COMPENSATION RANGES FOR STAFF. MANY SEF BOARD MEMBERS SERVE, AS WELL, ON OTHER NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONAL BOARDS AND BRING THAT KNOWLEDGE AND PERSPECTIVE TO BEAR IN SETTING COMPENSATION FOR SEF STAFF. SEF'S FINANCE, AUDIT AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE REVIEWS COMPENSATION AS PART OF THE ANNUAL BUDGET-SETTING CYCLE AND DETERMINES COMPENSATION OF THE PRESIDENT BASED UPON AN ANNUAL APPRAISAL OF PERFORMANCE. THAT APPRAISAL CONSIDERS ALL ASPECTS OF THE PRESIDENT'S WORK INCLUDING FUNDRAISING, MANAGEMENT, PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION, GOVERNANCE AND COMMUNICATIONS. SEF'S PRESIDENT APPRAISES THE PERFORMANCE OF OTHER SUBORDINATE SEF STAFF ANNUALLY. ALL SEF STAFF ARE PART OF A MERIT PAY PROGRAM IN WHICH THERE ARE NO AUTOMATIC OR COST OF LIVING INCREASES. |
| PART VI, LINE 19 | All SEF public documents are available upon request. Once a request is received the documents can be sent either electronically or through the US postal system. The 2015 CPA audit, conflict of interest policy and whistleblower policy can also be found on the SEF web site in the "Public Documents Listing" |
| Software ID: | |
| Software Version: |