Family Stepping Stones

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
263294994
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2014
Forms available
Form 990 2014
Location
Gladstone, OR, USA
Phone
5038504298
Rating
82
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Children's, Youth Services

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$306,373
Expenses
$376,852
Assets
$356,827
Liabilities
$1,340

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MICHAEL S CHEN MD (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • ANNELEAH JAXEN (EXCUTIVE DIRECTOR): $35,618 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Family stepping stones (fss) mission is to prevent child abuse and neglect through early intervention efforts that focus on developing and supporting children, strengthening parents and preserving the family.

What it reported doing in 2014

Family stepping stones (fss) relief nursery serves families in clackamas county who have children aged six weeks to five years old and who face challenges that may affect the health or safety of children or the family's ability to stay together. Family stepping stones was formed in march 2008 and opened its doors to children in mid-summer 2010. A relief nursery is a nationally recognized non-profit model proven to protect young children and to strengthen high-risk, multi-stressed families. The goal of a relief nursery is to help the family stay safe, together and thriving by providing therapeutic early childhood development services for children and comprehensive family support.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 90% 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 expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 86
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Accountability: 79
  • Sustainability: 29
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 92.3%; rating input score 92
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -23%; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.95; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 9.5%; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -41.1% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -35.2% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -28% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 92.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $348K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $36K · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 25 of 25 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2012 to 2014
  • 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 — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 11/100.
  • 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 42/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 35/100.