Connecticut Youth Services Association Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
061309954
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Cromwell, CT, USA
Phone
8605255080
Rating
83
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Youth Centers, Clubs

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,131,399
Expenses
$1,109,907
Assets
$448,876
Liabilities
$146,487

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

Leadership & pay

20 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SCOTT COCHRAN (PRESIDENT)
  • KRISTINA BALDWIN (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • JASON O'CONNOR (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • JUSTIN CARBONELLA (PAST PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • SCOTT COCHRAN (PRESIDENT)
  • KRISTINA BALDWIN (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • JASON O'CONNOR (VICE PRESIDENT)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

Connecticut youth services association (cysa) brings together and empowers Connecticut youth service bureaus (ysbs) through statewide coordination, training, advocacy, and innovation, ensuring every community has the necessary tools to support young people and their families.

What it reported doing in 2024

Connecticut department of children and families juvenile review board (jrb) support and enhancement grant provides funding to local juvenile review boards to create support and enhance the services they provide. Youth diversion teams (ydts) or jrbs are community-based diversion programs that provide early, restorative responses for youth who might otherwise be referred to juvenile court for minor violations of the law. The process aims to hold youth accountable for their behavior without resorting to legal sanctions or court oversight. Ydts aim to disrupt the school-to-prison pipeline by promoting healing, connection, and opportunity over punishment.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 88% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 44% for direct work, and 56% for grants.

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 expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 81
  • Transparency & Controls: 88
  • Accountability: 88
  • Sustainability: 38
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 90.6%; rating input score 91
  • Program expense ratio: 92.3%; rating input score 92
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 96.3%; rating input score 96; 43rd 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 71
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: 1.9%; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.4; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.33; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 7.5% per year; rating input score 100; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8.6% per year; rating input score 100; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8% per year; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 90.6% of revenue deployed · 92.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 20 of 20 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 20 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $136K reported
  • Consistency: 24 of 25 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2020 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 31 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.

Key Signals

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

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 42/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 19/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 23/100.