Charterhouse Center of San Joaquin County

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
680423881
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2013
Forms available
Form 990 2013
Location
Stockton, CA, USA
Phone
2094761106
Rating
83
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Family Services

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,118,514
Expenses
$1,122,232
Assets
$95,679
Liabilities
$45,734

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2013. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MICELLE KAMIENSKI (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • MICELLE KAMIENSKI (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $92,067 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2013. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Through literacy and education programs, jobs and vocational training, health education and insurance application assistance, charterhouse for families strives to reduce hunger, homelessness, school drop outs and violence throughout the diverse community of san joaquin county.

What it reported doing in 2013

Case management programs: the calworks program provides education, job training, temporary financial assistance and employment services to qualifying families with minor children. The goal is to help the recipients achieve a career that will support their family, last a lifetime, and help them to become contributing members of the community.the welfare to work program strives to transform clients in to self-reliance by offering activities such as: job search, employment skills assessment, community service, unpaid work experience training, substance abuse and mental health services, and domestic violence counseling.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 92% 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. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and revenue has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 96
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 79
  • Sustainability: 25
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 96.6%; rating input score 97
  • Program expense ratio: 96.2%; rating input score 96
  • Fundraising efficiency: $168.3 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -0.3%; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.09; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.48; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 8.2%; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: -1.4% per year; rating input score 0; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -68% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 96.6% of revenue deployed · 96.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $1.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $92K · 9 people listed
  • Consistency: 28 of 28 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2012 to 2013
  • 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.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 35/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 4/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 23/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 43/100.