Crossroad School for Child Development Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 113047784
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2014–2014
- Forms available
- Form 990 2014
- Location
- Inwood, NY, USA
- Phone
- 5162392182
- Rating
- 77
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Elementary, Secondary Education, K - 12
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $5,089,407
- Expenses
- $4,885,448
- Assets
- $542,154
- Liabilities
- $3,034,476
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
2 people listed
Highest reported compensation
- Susan Matura (Execuive Director): $75,000 total reported compensation
- Chris Demma (Controller): $60,000 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Serving the educational and therapeutic needs of preschool children who require a smaller more individualized approach to learning.
What it reported doing in 2014
Evaluations and early intervention services for children birth to 3 years old
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Other-operating. 98% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
- 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. Total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown and expenses are high relative to revenue.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 73
- Transparency & Controls: 90
- Accountability: 95
- Sustainability: 34
- Growth: NotEnoughData
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 81.1%; rating input score 81
- Program expense ratio: 84.5%; rating input score 84
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: Limited
- Major donor itemization: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 65th 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: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Other executive compensation review process: Pass
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Fail
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 4%; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.11; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 5.6; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 2.8%; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: Limited
- Asset growth: Limited
Details
- Where the money goes: 81.1% of revenue deployed · 84.5% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 4 of 4 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $4.1M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $75K · 2 people listed
- Consistency: 40 of 40 current checks pass
- Schedules: 4 filed schedules
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 2 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.
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 — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 3/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 53/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Audit committee oversight not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 1/100.
- High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.