Gerard House Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 481049532
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2017
- Forms available
- Form 990 2017
- Location
- Wichita, KS, USA
- Phone
- 3147338000
- Rating
- 69
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Residential Care & Adult Day Programs
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $14,198
- Expenses
- $53,535
- Assets
- $0
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
7 people listed
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Our mission as part of a catholic health care system is to further the healing ministry of jesus by continually improving the health and well-being of all people, especially the poor, in the communities we serve.
What it reported doing in 2017
Gerard house, inc, is a private non-profit maternity home organized for the purpose of providing 24-hour residential services, education, counseling, case management and care programs for needy pregnant women and their babies. The program provides services upholding the principles of the catholic church, with emphasis on the poor and underserved teen mothers of the region. These services, which provide an alternative to abortion, are available for the full term of a pregnancy and for up to two months following the birth of the infant. During the fiscal year ended march 27, 2018, services were provided to 7 women ranging in age from 16 to 20 years, and 2 babies. Gerard house also coordinates distribution of infant care products and furnishings to those in the community that are in need that are never residents of the home. This includes continued education and ged programs, nutrition, parenting and health education programs.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Other-operating. 78% 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 expenses are high relative to revenue.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 89
- Transparency & Controls: 55
- Accountability: 82
- Sustainability: 5
- Growth: 0
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
- Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 84.6%; rating input score 85; 3rd 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: 80%; rating input score 80; 24th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 86
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Limited
- Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -277.1%; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
- Officer compensation ratio: 67.7%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -25.4% per year; rating input score 0; 20th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -13.3% per year; rating input score 0; 31st percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -18.3% per year; rating input score 0; 11th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 4 of 5 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $55K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $428K · 7 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 22 of 24 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes executive pay
- Filing history: 6 filing years from 2010 to 2017
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Related organizations: 23 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.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 9/100.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 2/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Form 990 shared with the board not reported.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Series program expenses within total did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 5/100.