Lakeside Family and Children's Services

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
141564311
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2014
Forms available
Form 990 2014
Location
Spring Valley, NY, USA
Phone
8452222469
Rating
38
Verdict
REVIEW
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Foster Care

Reported finances

Revenue
$347
Expenses
$355,952
Assets
$1,271,939
Liabilities
$2,335,598

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

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • HARVEY NEWMAN (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • AHMED MARSAFAWY (CFO): $75,100 total reported compensation
  • HARVEY NEWMAN (CEO): $43,300 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Lakeside family & children's services, inc. (the organization") is a not-for-profit social service organization founded in 1923. The organization used to operate group homes and a foster boarding home program and other programs that provide professional and social services to children and families throughout New York city and the metropolitan area.

What it reported doing in 2014

Operation ceased

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 100% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
Distribution model
No current program activity. The filing reports no program spending for the current year.

The verdict

REVIEW - 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: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 81
  • Accountability: 63
  • Sustainability: 15
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90%; rating input score 90; 10th 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: 1 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 11
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -102,479.8%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.57; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 1.84; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 33.3%; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 4 board members independent · 1 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $75K · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 19 of 20 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 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.

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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 7 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 1/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Independent members within voting members did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 46/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 2/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 10/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.