Fields Comprehensive Youth Services Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
330692859
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Alta Loma, CA, USA
Phone
9093226980
Rating
69
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Residential Care & Adult Day Programs

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,305,998
Expenses
$2,905,458
Assets
$1,471,287
Liabilities
$406,063

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

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Arby Fields (CEO)
  • Josetti Fields (Assistant CEO)
  • Raymond Braggs (Dir President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Arby Fields (CEO): $207,692 total reported compensation
  • Ny'shae D Fields (Clinical Director): $117,428 total reported compensation
  • Josetti Fields (Assistant CEO): $76,643 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Short Term Residential Treatment Program facilities for twelve youth

What it reported doing in 2024

The organization provides short term residential treatment program for a maximum at any given time of 12 youth up to ages 10 to 17 who were under the control of a California Court. The program addressed problems such as substance abuse low self-esteem delinquency gangs related alcohol and peer relationship. The program offers social work psychological and psychiatrist treatment. The program operates 2 facilities and provides 24-7 services and is licensed by the State of CA offering housing food clothing and school. The Organization was awarded mental health services contract with the County of Los Angeles & San Bernardino County. The contract is to provide early periodic screening diagnosis and treatment EPSDT mental health treatment services to all youth in their care.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 99% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 66
  • Transparency & Controls: 52
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 43
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 69.5%; rating input score 70
  • Program expense ratio: 79.1%; rating input score 79
  • Fundraising efficiency: $1.32 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 85.7%; rating input score 86; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • 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: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 12.1%; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.51; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.28; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 13.8%; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 8.6% per year; rating input score 100; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 9.8% per year; rating input score 100; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 9.9% per year; rating input score 100; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 69.5% of revenue deployed · 79.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $2.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $208K · 7 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 42 of 45 current checks pass · 3 findings to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2020 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

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

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 3/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 18/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 21/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX FeesForServicesAccounting column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 36/100.