Central Arizona Shelter Services Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
860500753
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Phoenix, AZ, USA
Phone
6202566945
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Homeless Shelters

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$10,845,431
Expenses
$11,262,786
Assets
$29,160,012
Liabilities
$4,404,483

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

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • NATHAN SMITH (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • NATHAN SMITH (CEO): $188,788 total reported compensation
  • NICOLE PENA (CHIEF DEVELOPMENT OFFICER): $143,143 total reported compensation
  • BRITTNIE STANTON (CHIEF PROGRAM OFFICER): $124,659 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 Organizations mission is to prevent and end homelessness among individuals and families while advancing compassionate community solutions.

What it reported doing in 2024

Cass single adult shelter provides shelter and supportive services for single adults experiencing homelessness. Services include access to case management, beds, showers, clothing, and hygiene items-all at no cost to recipients. This fiscal year cass provided 252,396 nights of shelter to 3,741 unduplicated single adults. All people served have access to cass progressive engagement case management designed to engage individuals in order to empower them to end their homelessness. Other services available include rapid re-housing services, rent and utility deposit assistance, eviction prevention, and easy access to other services provided by on-campus partner organizations (including mental health services, health care, dental care, substance abuse treatment, legal assistance and much more).

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 97% 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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. The filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 69
  • Transparency & Controls: 61
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 44
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 74.5%; rating input score 74
  • Program expense ratio: 71.7%; rating input score 72
  • Fundraising efficiency: $9.45 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 17th 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: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 0%; rating input score 0; 4th 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: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -3.8%; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.59; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.15; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.1%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 3.2% per year; rating input score 100; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6.6% per year; rating input score 100; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 19.6% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 74.5% of revenue deployed · 71.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 6 filed program accomplishments · $8.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $189K · 13 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 36 of 37 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 37/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 19/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 58/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.