Parents Anonymous of South Carolina Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
570672766
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2015
Forms available
Form 990 2015
Location
N Charleston, SC, USA
Phone
8437470480
Rating
86
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Private Independent Foundations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$356,155
Expenses
$395,469
Assets
$18,629
Liabilities
$100,218

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DAVID BENNETT (PRESIDENT)
  • MARGARET L COCHRAN (VICE-PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • SHANNON BRIGHAM (MEMBER AT LARGE)
  • DWAYNE M GREEN (MEMBER AT LARGE)
  • DAVID KALERGIS (MEMBER AT LARGE)

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 2015. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To prevent and stop child abuse and neglect by strengthening families through a statewide network of community - evidence based mutual support programs for parents, caregivers, and service providers.

What it reported doing in 2015

Statewide network of parents anonymous evidenced based parental support groups. In 2015, the organization trained and implemented 64 adult and children's parental support groups to fidelity in 26 countries. Group types include: 14 kinship groups, 2 teen parent groups, 2 father only groups (including a group for incarcerated dads), 39 open parent (any caregiver can attend), 4 djj groups for caregivers of children who are 1st time offenders, and 2 hispanic groups. During 2012, 963 caregivers attended one of the 64 groups. Also, during 2015, the organization offered nine (9) statewide child abuse and awareness trainings to mandated reporters on the four forms of child abuse and neglect with over 250 attendees from 39 different organizations. In addition, fourteen (14) new group facilitators were trained in the parents anonymous model to facilitate parents anonymous peer to peer mutual support groups across the state. In 2015, triple p parenting classes were offered every ten (10) weeks throughout the tri-counties of berkeley, dorchester, and charleston and 12 clients were mandated to attend one of our eight week triple p parenting class. Finally, in 2015, the organization held five regional parents leading the way conferences and over 600 caregivers and their children attended on of these five regional conferences.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 68% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
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

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 90
  • Transparency & Controls: 86
  • Accountability: 94
  • Sustainability: 20
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 96.1%; rating input score 96
  • Program expense ratio: 86.5%; rating input score 87
  • Fundraising efficiency: $29.5 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 86
    • 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: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -11%; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.05; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 5.38; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 19.9% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5.7% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -40.8% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 96.1% of revenue deployed · 86.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 6 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $342K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 29 of 30 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2010 to 2015
  • 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 — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 21/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 4/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 1/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.