Senior Care Volunteer Network

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
311712933
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Crystal Lake, IL, USA
Phone
8154553120
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Senior Centers

Reported finances

Revenue
$634,481
Expenses
$578,387
Assets
$696,383
Liabilities
$67,271

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • SARAH SCHREMPF (Executive Dir.): $65,350 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Volunteers provide no cost services such as transportation, friendly visits, minorhome repairs, short-term non-medical respite care and help with seasonal yard work.senior care volunteer network (scvn) exists to address the challenges faced by ourcounty seniors. Any senior 60+ is eligible to enroll for our no-cost services. Scvndoes not limit services due to income status, although most of our seniors fall wellbelow the hud median family income level. The scvn mission provides assistance andallows seniors to age and remain independent at home for as long and as safely aspossible. We are able to accomplish this very important task by providing services atno-cost to seniors with the selfless support of over 250 direct service volunteers.provides unskilled volunteer care at no cost to senior citizens.

What it reported doing in 2024

Senior care volunteer network (scvn) exists to address the challenges faced by ourcounties seniors. Any senior sixty or older is eligible to enroll for our no-costservices. Scvn does not limit services due to income status, although most of ourseniors fall well below the hud median family income level. The scvn mission providesassistance and allows seniors to age and remain independent at home for as long andas safely as possible. We are able to accomplish this very important task byproviding services at no-cost to seniors with the selfless support of over 250 direct service volunteers.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 76% for direct work, and 24% for member benefits.

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 fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 72
  • Transparency & Controls: 84
  • Accountability: 76
  • Sustainability: 51
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 74.7%; rating input score 75
  • Program expense ratio: 81.7%; rating input score 82
  • Fundraising efficiency: $7.25 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 19th 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 43
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Limited
    • 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: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 8.8%; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.2; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.1; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 11.3%; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 5.2% per year; rating input score 100; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6.6% per year; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 13.1% per year; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 74.7% of revenue deployed · 81.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 9 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $472K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $65K · 9 people listed
  • Consistency: 27 of 28 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2013 to 2024
  • 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 28/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Independent members within voting members did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 59/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 49/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 33/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 43/100.