CASA of Rochester-Monroe County Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 222296489
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2020
- Location
- Rochester, NY, USA
- Phone
- 5853713986
- Rating
- 77
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $229,277
- Expenses
- $205,221
- Assets
- $113,142
- Liabilities
- $25,750
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
10 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Maryellen Dance (President)
- Lara Graham (Executive Director)
Highest reported compensation
- Lara Graham (Executive Director): $46,331 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To train and supervise a diverse group of volunteers to advocate for children who have been abused and/or neglected. These children are at risk of being removed, or have been removed, from their homes.
What it reported doing in 2024
Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) of Rochester/Monroe County is a private, non-profit organization that trains and supervises a diverse group of volunteers to advocate for the best interests of children who have been neglected and abused. These children have been removed or are at risk of being removed from their homes. CASA's goal is that all children have a safe permanent home as soon as possible. Family Court judges assign a CASA volunteer to work on behalf of a child and family. Volunteers are trained to advocate for the best interests of the assigned children, and frequently facilitate access to additional services for them and their families. CASAs also report back to court information gathered on the children and their involved parents, identifying barriers and opportunities. (Continued on Schedule O)As advocates, CASAs strongly recommend the prioritization of resources for these vulnerable children and families to promote an equitable outcome.CASA is a single program and part of the National CASA model, meeting all standards. Our cases are assigned by the seven sitting Family Court Judges and in 2024 we engaged in significant marketing efforts to attract more CASA volunteers and visibility. We sought to rebuild the caseload we had experienced pre-pandemic. This past year we served 85 children in 33 families, half of the volume of 2 years prior. 80% of the children were served primarily by one of the 23 volunteer advocates. To grow the program, additional trained volunteers are needed with strong supervisory supports. These efforts to rebuild were confounded by the retirement of a long-term Executive Director in November of 2023, with a new ED who resigned in February 2024 and another new ED was brought on in April 2024 and has left one year later. The dedicated advocates and staff have continued to passionately pursue our mission serving the children. The advocacy work we do while the case is open has a substantial impact on the children and their families. About 69% of the families served by CASA of Rochester/Monroe County are ultimately reunified. In addition, 11% of the cases closed with a custody order to a relative or fictive kin. Remarkably, less than 1% of closed cases need to be reopened within two years. Accomplishments for the program include:- Increase in revenue through increased CASANYS Contract, Legislative member item grants focused on capacity and growth, a 3-year United Way Impact grant, and events.- An increase in visibility and active, targeted recruitment of a diverse group of advocates is critical to increased capacity. A Special Projects grant through CASANYS focused on recruitment and marketing including billboards, RTS bus-stop posters and related materials. We have seen an increase (50%) in the volunteer inquiries in the quarter following these efforts.- The Advocate Coordinator position has been vacant for the past year while leadership has been in transition. The program is actively recruiting for the position. Increased presence on social media and community-based events has boosted the interest in our volunteer opportunity. To grow the program, we must recruit, train and assign more advocates.- Additionally, there are non-advocate volunteers contributing their time and talents serving on our Board, committees, and at events.- The new National CASA Standards have resulted in updated policies and procedures. We also refreshed our training curriculum in addition to the three Flex Pre-Service training series each year as part of our retention plan and to meet standards.Some key NYS CASA Outcomes, which encompass those of Monroe County, include:- 95% of children received one or more services advocated for by CASA- 97% had their medical needs met, including 93% for mental health services- 92% of children who were in need of an IEP or 504 plan received the necessary services or parties were notified- 94% attended school at least 90% of the time or obstacles were identified/parties notifiedT
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Grant-funded. 72% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
- 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.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and revenue has declined or grown slowly.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 65
- Transparency & Controls: 92
- Accountability: 95
- Sustainability: 40
- Growth: 40
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 65.2%; rating input score 65
- Program expense ratio: 72.8%; rating input score 73
- Fundraising efficiency: $10.08 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 10.5%; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.55; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.23; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 22.6%; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 0.3% per year; rating input score 100; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -0.4% per year; rating input score 0; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -6% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 65.2% of revenue deployed · 72.8% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $149K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $46K · 10 people listed
- Consistency: 25 of 25 current checks pass
- Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
- Filing history: 6 filing years from 2010 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
- 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.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 39/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 26/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 17/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 18/100.