Alternatives Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
222318999
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Raritan, NJ, USA
Phone
9046851444
Rating
82
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Group Homes

Reported finances

Revenue
$23,074,994
Expenses
$22,909,356
Assets
$7,892,777
Liabilities
$3,654,676

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

24 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • NANCY GOOD (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • NANCY GOOD (PRESIDENT): $212,856 total reported compensation
  • JOE MATTIA (VP OF FINANCE): $174,644 total reported compensation
  • FRESIA SKOCZYPEC (VP OF PROGRAM SERVICE): $164,454 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Alternatives, inc was established to provide comprehensive services to individuals/families with special needs to enable them to reach their highest level of independence and integration into the community.

What it reported doing in 2024

Community services - consists of programs dedicated to servicing individuals who struggle with mental health needs as well as individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities. 1. The community support program (csp) serves adults with mental illness and substance abuse issues who live independently in the community. Csp serve individuals somerset and warren counties, nj on an outreach basis; the clients live in either their own housing or residences owned by the agency. All clients are offered outreach case management and clinical services such as skill building, money management, linkages to community and mental health resources, assistance with daily living skills, etc. Staff works with these clients on specific strategies to help them recover from mental health symptoms, gain employment, maintain their housing and finances, maintain a safe and stable residence, and improve their overall quality of life. During fy20, the community support programs served individuals within those two (2) counties. In addition, slots in this program are set-aside for some of the most challenging individuals, individuals who were chronically homeless prior to placement. The agency also provides affordable housing as part of the community support programs. Individuals are referred to the agency by the division of mental health and addition services (dmhas), community mental health centers, hospitals, families, and consumers themselves. 2. The community supportive living programs in warren and somerset counties, nj are funded by the nj -division of mental health and addiction services (dmhas) out of an initiative put forth under the olmstead act, which aims to move housing services to individuals who were either discharged directly from a state psychiatric hospital, or coming from an at-risk situation in the community. These clients are typically seen more frequently than the csp clients. The clients live in either their own 1-bedroom or 2-bedroom apartment with a roommate. Staff is located on site. Services are oriented towards as s is ting the individuals in transitioning from a hospital or homeless setting and integrating them into the community. Staff provide such services as skill building, money management, mental health counseling, medication education, daily living skills training, advocacy, linkages to community resources /entitlements and vocational assistance. The overall purpose of the program is to provide a safe and stable environment for individuals to learn the skills necessary to live independently, recover from their mental health symptoms and be fully integrated into the community. Individuals are referred to the agency by the division of mental health and addition services (dmhas), community mental health centers, hospitals, families, and consumers themselves. 3. The support coordination program is dedicated to providing services to adults with intellectual/developmental disabilities residing in morris and union counties. Support coordinators utilize person centered planning to develop an individualized service plan (isp) and utilize an individualized budget to locate appropriate services. Once linked to services, the agency monitors these services to assure that the clients needs are met and that they are satisfied with the service provider(s) that have been written into the isp. 4. Abilities in motion (aim) day program was opened by alternatives, inc. In 2014. Clients come together to work on life skills, vocational skills and social skills. Engaging in activities including arts and crafts, light exercise and cooking participants learn and practice skills while having fun. Weekly outings provide a sense of community for program participants. At the center, we offer teaching modalities individualized to each participant ensuring the greatest opportunity to learn. A structured daily schedule, the use of technology (ipad, wii fitness), arts and crafts, and music provide a meaningful experience for participants.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 95% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 96% 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

STRONG - 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 expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 82
  • Transparency & Controls: 76
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 27
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 89.9%; rating input score 90
  • Program expense ratio: 90%; rating input score 90
  • Fundraising efficiency: $4.25 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 0.7%; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.34; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.46; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 7%; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 4.1% per year; rating input score 100; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.2% per year; rating input score 100; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 3.9% per year; rating input score 100; 28th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 89.9% of revenue deployed · 90% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $20.6M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $213K · 24 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $1.5M reported
  • Consistency: 33 of 34 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 15 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 8 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 17/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 36/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 9/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 31/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 36/100.