Adolescent Counseling & Treatment 1 Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
341755330
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2010
Forms available
Form 990 2010
Location
Rogers, OH, USA
Phone
3302279550
Rating confidence
Limited
Sector
Mental Health Treatment F31 Psychiatric, Mental Health Hospital

Reported finances

Revenue
$238,096
Expenses
$253,438
Assets
$1,449,845
Liabilities
$954,369

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2010. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2010. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Non-profit agency providing residential treatment services to abused and neglected adolescents with mental health issues.

What it reported doing in 2010

Provided services solely to children's service boards, juvenile courts, the Ohio department of youth sevices, and the department of human services. The organization provided for the residential treatment and counseling of adolescents who are referred and supervised by various agencies and legal authorities of the state of Ohio all services are performed under per diem contracts. The facility is located in rogers, Ohio.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 100% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
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: 40
  • Sustainability: 44
  • 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; 59th 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: 33.3%; rating input score 33; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -6.4%; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 5.72; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.66; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 9.6%; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: -108.6% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -2% per year; rating input score 0; 40th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
  • Governance: 1 of 3 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $175K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $24K · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 24 of 24 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2009 to 2010
  • 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: Independent voting board scored 33/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 29/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 15/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 39/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.