Casa Youth Advocates Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
231901080
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Media, PA, USA
Phone
6105652208
Rating
80
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Civil Rights

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,548,752
Expenses
$2,555,899
Assets
$1,446,875
Liabilities
$396,555

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

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • LEIGH ANNE McKELVEY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • LEIGH ANNE McKELVEY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $144,763 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The organization's court-appointed special advocate volunteers investigate each child's unique needs & circumstances and submit reports to the dependency court that include recommendations regarding their best interests.

What it reported doing in 2024

Individual advocacy: casa youth advocates, inc. Provides individual advocacy to children involved in the child welfare court systems in Delaware and chester counties by recruiting, training, and supporting community volunteers to serve as court appointed special advocates. In 2024 casa provided individual advocacy services to 328 children from 214 families, utilizing 147 volunteer advocates. For 166 of those children, casa also served as the educational decision-maker in situations where a parent or caregiver was unable or unwilling to be the primary decision-maker regarding the child's education. Casa advocates provide consistency to the children they serve. In 2024 109 children exiting the program received casa services for an average of 24 months and 85% experienced no turnover in assigned advocate. Though an 18-month commitment is requested of all volunteers, in 2024 the average length of services for advocates with the program was 42 months. Casa youth advocates also provides for the material needs of children and families served by the program, through a dedicated casa cares fund, which provides for basic needs as well as educational and extracurricular activities.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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.
  • 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: 72
  • Transparency & Controls: 87
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 31
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 75.6%; rating input score 76
  • Program expense ratio: 75.1%; rating input score 75
  • Fundraising efficiency: $11.81 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.1%; rating input score 94; 23rd 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: Fail
    • 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: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -0.3%; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.57; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.27; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5.7%; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 15.3% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 13.9% per year; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 16.9% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 75.6% of revenue deployed · 75.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 14 of 14 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $1.9M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $145K · 15 people listed
  • Consistency: 32 of 33 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2015 to 2024
  • 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

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 — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 43/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 32/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 20/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Document-retention policy not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 36/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 49/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.