Glenshire Village Emergency Shelter

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
760341079
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2013
Forms available
Form 990 2013
Location
Houston, TX, USA
Phone
2815307923
Rating
69
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Homeless Shelters

Reported finances

Revenue
$411,432
Expenses
$354,713
Assets
$48,503
Liabilities
$48,503

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2013. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

1 person listed

Highest reported compensation

  • PEARL BOLTON (DIRECTOR): $21,500 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2013. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To provide emergency shelter for children ages 7-17.

What it reported doing in 2013

The primary purpose of glenshire village is to provide food, clothing and shelter for children ages 7-17 that are placed by the Texas department of family and regulatory services.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 100% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program 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 the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and revenue has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 89
  • Transparency & Controls: 70
  • Accountability: 47
  • Sustainability: 42
  • Growth: 20

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: 70%; rating input score 70; 0th 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: 80%; rating input score 80; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 0 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Fail
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 13.8%; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.14; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 1; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 6.1%; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: -3.3% per year; rating input score 0; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8.6% per year; rating input score 100; 67th 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 · 0 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $416K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $22K · 1 people listed
  • Consistency: 18 of 21 current checks pass · 3 findings to review
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2010 to 2013
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 7 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Series program expenses within total did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 8/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 7/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 40/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.