Clearcorpsusa Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
270014741
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2017
Forms available
Form 990 2017
Location
St Paul, MN, USA
Phone
6512888746
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Home Health Care

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$498,889
Expenses
$530,336
Assets
$65,695
Liabilities
$29,987

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • SUE GUNDERSON (EXECUTIVE DI): $124,740 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Clearcorps/USA is a public/private partnership whose goal is to create a national network of affiliated programs working within communities to promote healthy families and healthy homes. Through organizing and strengthening family-center effort, the organization protects children from lead poisoning and other home-based environmental hazards.

What it reported doing in 2017

Clearcorps helps families protect their children from the devastating effects of lead poisoning through a variety of methods. The lead education and screening program educates parents about the dangers of lead hazards in their homes and tests children for lead. One-on-one in-home visits gives clearcorps health educators an opportunity to talk with parents in their own home environment and uses the house as an educational tool to point out areas that might be hazardous to their family's health. Clearcorps' lead testing activities bring lead screening into the community to places that are comfortable and convenient to families. Clearcorps tests around 2000 children per year in the state of Minnesota. These children are considered at-risk for lead exposure due to the age of the home or apartment they live in or the fact that they are on medicaid. Clearcorps partners with other organizations and governmental agencies to provide funding to replace windows and remediate lead hazards. 146 units were referred and enrolled into hud lead hazard control and lead demonstration grants in hennepin county.

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.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The required major-donor schedule is missing or incomplete and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 88
  • Transparency & Controls: 75
  • Accountability: 79
  • Sustainability: 18
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 92.8%; rating input score 93
  • Program expense ratio: 87.3%; rating input score 87
  • Fundraising efficiency: $28.9 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 69; 69th 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: No; rating input score 0
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -6.3%; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.12; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.46; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 23.5%; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 15.5% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -6.5% per year; rating input score 0; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 1.4% per year; rating input score 100; 41st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 92.8% of revenue deployed · 87.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $463K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $125K · 7 people listed
  • Consistency: 25 of 25 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2012 to 2017
  • 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Major donor itemization scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 26/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 8/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 15/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 16/100.