Respite Connections Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
311725912
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2015
Forms available
Form 990 2015
Location
Columbus, OH, USA
Phone
6148904357
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Children's, Youth Services

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,095,912
Expenses
$2,088,041
Assets
$834,776
Liabilities
$1,128,195

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

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Karen Cotts (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Christe Snyder (Executive Dir.): $70,849 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To provide a continuum of therapeutic and well ness oriented support services to individuals of all ages in order to assist them in achieving their individual goals and reaching their fullest potential.

What it reported doing in 2015

Respite Care. We provide short-term (0-14 days) care for special needs youth in order to offer support and strengthen families as well as provide a loving and constructive environment for children. This temporary relief for care givers provides the foundation for support that is critical to family stability and growth. We provide community based support service to families with children who are identified as being at risk for abuse, neglect or out-of-home placement due to a variety of reasons. We provide respite care services, crisis care, 1:1 wrap-around services, therapeutic summer camp, home-based services, parenting classes, and I.O. Waiver and Level 1 waiver services.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 73% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 96% 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 - 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 program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 84
  • Transparency & Controls: 91
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 31
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 95%; rating input score 95
  • Program expense ratio: 95.4%; rating input score 95
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 88.5%; rating input score 88; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Fail
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 0.4%; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.4; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 1.35; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 3.4%; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -7.5% per year; rating input score 0; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 0.9% per year; rating input score 100; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -1.3% per year; rating input score 0; 23rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 95% of revenue deployed · 95.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $71K · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 27 of 28 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2010 to 2015
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 3 filed related-organization links
  • 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.

  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 37/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 19/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 4/100.