Fremont in Home Services

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
870694979
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2021
Forms available
Form 990 2021
Location
Baton Rouge, LA, USA
Phone
2253682791
Rating
53
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
In-Home Assistance

Reported finances

Revenue
$61,442
Expenses
$11,964
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2021. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • TAMY BARRETT (PRESIDENT)
  • PEG PALMER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

People named in this filing

  • TAMY BARRETT (PRESIDENT)
  • PATRICIA ELDAN (DIRECTOR)
  • ELIZABETH HASTINGS (DIRECTOR)

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 2021. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To provide in-home medical services to individuals in fremont county, Wyoming, and the surrounding area.

What it reported doing in 2021

Various forms of medical care for homebound patients

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 100% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 77% for direct work, and 23% for grants.

The verdict

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 17
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 82
  • Sustainability: 53
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 7.3%; rating input score 7
  • Program expense ratio: 37.7%; rating input score 38
  • 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: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 57
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 80.5%; rating input score 96; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -10.4% per year; rating input score 0; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -8.6% per year; rating input score 0; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -23.8% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 7.3% of revenue deployed · 37.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 4 board members independent · 4 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $5K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 15 of 16 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2013 to 2021
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 7/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 38/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 3/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.