A Child's Place of Charlotte Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 581911741
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2011–2019
- Forms available
- Form 990 2019
- Location
- Charlotte, NC, USA
- Phone
- 7043433790
- Rating
- 77
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Children's, Youth Services
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $940,066
- Expenses
- $1,085,189
- Assets
- $0
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2019. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
13 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- MEG ALLISON (PRESIDENT)
Highest reported compensation
- SHANTIQUA NEELY (ED (LEFT JUNE 2019)): $56,793 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2019. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
A child's place works to erase the impact of homelessness on children and their education.
What it reported doing in 2019
A child's place is the only nonprofit organization in charlotte focused specifically on the success of children whose families are experiencing homelessness, most often suffering in generational poverty. A child's place program model strengthens our impact in the school and extends our reach into the community. Acp's two-generation, holistic support is offered through: (continued on schedule o)1)school-based services at cms sites. In each of our partner schools, acp deploys a team of experts that help families navigate community resources; eliminate barriers to the student's education (food, transportation, physical/emotional health issues); this includes creating an individualized case plan that supports the child's continued focus on education so that our children and families discover the power of education to improve their lives. Stabilize the family at the point of crisis by assessing, developing goals, monitoring progress and connecting to strategic partnerships as they resolve issues that led to the homeless crisis.2)community-based services across mecklenburg county. The community response team (crt) allows acp to reach additional title i schools. When contacted by a mckinney vento liaison, a crt student advocate responds, assesses the family's situation, provides for immediate needs to both child and parent, and makes vital referrals to address the issues that led to the housing crisis. The crt provides social emotional learning services, of which acp will expand programming to offer wrap-around support for homeless children and families outside of school, focusing on socio-emotional health, long-term stability, and housing. Acp works aggressively to meet basic needs, help stabilize the family, and work toward progress around attendance, positive behaviors and improved family engagement at the point of their crisis. By supporting students with transportation issues, social-emotional, and physical health issues, school supplies, uniforms, food, and many other challenges, staff eliminate barriers that impede the ability of children in homelessness to be present and engaged at school. Focusing efforts to ensure a child in crisis is prepared and in school is the critical foundation that can lead to long-term academic gains, which can ultimately positively impact the trajectory of that child's life forever. Additionally staff make countless referrals, serving as a vital connector to those organizations and agencies with the expertise and capacity to address root causes of homelessness.during the 2018-19 school year, a child's place served 1,751 clients. Demographics of the clients served include, 92% african american, primarily led by single, female heads-of-household, and 100% of clients reported an income below the federal poverty level.
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 99% 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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 79
- Transparency & Controls: 92
- Accountability: 84
- Sustainability: 12
- Growth: 0
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 91%; rating input score 91
- Program expense ratio: 78.8%; rating input score 79
- Fundraising efficiency: $5.49 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: Limited
- 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: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Other executive compensation review process: Pass
- Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -15.4%; rating input score 12; 12th 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: 5.2%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -12% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -8.5% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -3.6% per year; rating input score 0; 13th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 91% of revenue deployed · 78.8% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 19 of 19 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $855K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $57K · 13 people listed
- Consistency: 28 of 28 current checks pass
- Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors
- Filing history: 9 filing years from 2011 to 2019
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
- 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 21/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 12/100.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.