Learning Well Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
364509221
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2016
Forms available
Form 990 2016
Location
Avon, IN, USA
Phone
3176989519
Rating
63
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Public Health Program (Includes General Health and Wellness Promotion Services)

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,185,261
Expenses
$1,454,273
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DONNA A STEPHENS (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • DONNA A STEPHENS (CEO): $159,439 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To improve the health, well-being, and school performance of students in Marion County through integrated primary healthcare services provided by collaborative partnerships.

What it reported doing in 2016

Most frequent diagnosis/treatment/screening: 1) health education counseling: 19,108 (including asthma management) 2) medication administration: 42,246 3) bmi (body mass index) screenings: 2,916 (21.2 percent abnormal) 4) vitals monitoring: 4,408 5) mental health counseling: 1,523 6) epsdt (early and periodic screening, diagnosis, treatment): 1,817 7) nutritional counseling: 1,172 8) cold packs, temperature: 10,887 9) wound cleaning/bandages: 2,19310) referrals (physician, dentists, etc.): 521

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - 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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 57
  • Transparency & Controls: 70
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 45
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 44.3%; rating input score 44
  • Program expense ratio: 66.5%; rating input score 67
  • Fundraising efficiency: $164.81 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • 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: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • 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: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 33.5%; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 11%; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -24.3% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -11% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -10.4% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 44.3% of revenue deployed · 66.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $967K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $159K · 12 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 3 contractors listed · $690K reported
  • Consistency: 24 of 24 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2009 to 2016
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 44/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 21/100.