Casa of Scott County Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
455183803
IRS 990 coverage
2017–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Scottsburg, IN, USA
Phone
8127524748
Rating
85
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Youth Development Programs

Reported finances

Revenue
$262,719
Expenses
$338,154
Assets
$220,177
Liabilities
$31,759

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • RUSS COMER (PRESIDENT)
  • MELISSA WOODS (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • KELLY SHELHAMER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • KELLY SHELHAMER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $66,061 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Casa of scott county, inc. ( court appointed special advocates) ("casa") in scott county, Indiana, is a non-profit organization that recruits, screens, and trains volunteer child advocates to work in the court system in collaboration with other key agencies, legal counsel and community resources to represent the best interest of children in the juvenile court proceedings. Casa volunteers make recommendations regarding appropriate protective and rehabilitative services necessary to ensure a safe and permanent home for every child adjudicated as a child in need of services within the county.

What it reported doing in 2025

Casa of scott county recruits, screens, trains, and supports qualified community volunteers to serve as court appointed special advocates (casas) for children involved in abuse and neglect proceedings. Volunteer advocates are appointed by the court to represent the best interests of children in the child welfare system by conducting independent investigations, monitoring each child's safety and well-being, and providing objective recommendations to the court regarding permanency, services, and placement. The organization provides ongoing supervision, continuing education, and advocacy support to volunteers throughout the duration of each case, helping to ensure that children have a consistent voice in court and access to needed services while working toward safe, permanent, and nurturing homes.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 65% 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

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: 92
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 17
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 96.2%; rating input score 96
  • Program expense ratio: 74.7%; rating input score 75
  • Fundraising efficiency: $8.21 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 32; 32nd 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; 64th 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: Fail
    • 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: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -28.7%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.65; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.14; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 19.5%; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 9.4% per year; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8.7% per year; rating input score 100; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 25.5% per year; rating input score 100; 88th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 96.2% of revenue deployed · 74.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $253K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $66K · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 31 of 31 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2017 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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 32/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 8/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: CEO compensation review process not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 30/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 19/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 19/100.