Sehr-Allen Charitable Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
463491964
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2016
Forms available
Form 990 2016, Form 990-EZ 2014
Location
Sacramento, CA, USA
Phone
9169780744
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Patient Services - Entertainment, Recreation

Reported finances

Revenue
$8,333
Expenses
$4,296
Assets
$673,787
Liabilities
$126,987

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

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Angela Sehr (President)

People named in this filing

  • Angela Sehr (President)
  • James Sehr (Director)
  • James Allen (Director)

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 2016. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Sehr-Allen Charitable Foundation aims to provide financial support for a variety of charitable causes, with special emphasis on assuring compassionate end-of-life care for patients of all social-economic backgrounds.

What it reported doing in 2016

To provide financial assistance for sick or dying individuals and their family members in need of services including, but not limited to, hospice care and memorial services.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 89% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of total spending goes to programs. 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: 61
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 80
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 49.8%; rating input score 50
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
  • 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: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • 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: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 48.4%; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 156.84; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.19; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -93.3% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 27.7% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 71.7% per year; rating input score 100; 99th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 49.8% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 4 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $4K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 14 of 14 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2015 to 2016
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 5 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 50/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 17/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.