R House Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
942278033
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2016
Forms available
Form 990 2016
Location
Santa Rosa, CA, USA
Phone
7075712215
Rating
83
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Alcohol, Drug and Substance Abuse, Dependency Prevention and Treatment

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,731,572
Expenses
$2,669,010
Assets
$1,350,702
Liabilities
$1,457,828

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

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CHRIS PAIGE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (LEFT 5/17))
  • ANITA MALDONADO (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (JOINED 6/17))

Highest reported compensation

  • CHRIS PAIGE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (LEFT 5/17)): $143,704 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Our mission is to provide a treatment environment for teen recovery through personal empowerment by upholding the fundamental values of integrity, hard work and empathy for others.

What it reported doing in 2016

Residential care program- r house, inc. Provides 24 hour per day care and supervision for children eligible for aid to families with dependent children-foster care group home services which are placed by various counties within California, California's access to recovery effort which provides vouchers to youth for alcohol and drug treatment and recovery support services, and residential supervision and substance abuse treatment services to youth placed by the sonoma county department of health services. The program primarily serves children ages 14-19 with chemical addictions and severe mental health issues.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 100% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
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. Program spending has declined or grown slowly and revenue has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 84
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 40
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 85.8%; rating input score 86
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd 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: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • 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: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 2.3%; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.51; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 1.08; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0.8%; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -3.4% per year; rating input score 0; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -5.7% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -26.8% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 85.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 4 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $2.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $144K · 9 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $125K reported
  • Consistency: 29 of 29 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2011 to 2016
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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 — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 47/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 24/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 5/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization is recorded as not currently operating in California.