Elon Homes and Schools for Children

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
560543225
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2020
Forms available
Form 990 2020
Location
Charlotte, NC, USA
Phone
7045760245
Rating
69
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Residential Care & Adult Day Programs

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,304,649
Expenses
$1,928,425
Assets
$1,885,575
Liabilities
$11,125,434

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Rev Dr Frederick G Grosse (President)
  • Jane Grosse (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Rev Dr Frederick G Grosse (President): $231,052 total reported compensation
  • Jane Grosse (Vice President): $126,683 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The organization's mission is to provide safe haven, life skills and education to children in our care. Elon Homes fulfills its mission through its Community-Based Foster Care program.

What it reported doing in 2020

Community-Based Foster Care program provides refuge, within a licensed family setting, for children who need a safe place to live when their parents cannot adequately care for them. We serve children, ages 0-20, in roughly a dozen North Carolina counties from Mecklenburg to Durham, accepting referrals from any NC Dept of Social Services. We provided for services for approximately 75 children.

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. A relatively small share of total spending goes to programs and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 65
  • Transparency & Controls: 84
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 14
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 81.6%; rating input score 82
  • Program expense ratio: 55.1%; rating input score 55
  • Fundraising efficiency: $4.64 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Pass
    • 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: Limited
  • 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 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -47.8%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.98; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 5.9; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 18.6%; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -2.8% per year; rating input score 0; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -5% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -13.3% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 81.6% of revenue deployed · 55.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $231K · 8 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 30 of 30 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2009 to 2020
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 2 filed related-organization links
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 55/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 11/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 3/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 37/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 18/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.