Sheltering Arms Senior Services

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
741152601
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2014
Forms available
Form 990 2014
Location
Houston, TX, USA
Phone
7139561888
Rating
71
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Senior Centers

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$5,346,824
Expenses
$5,853,996
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Judith A Blanchard (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Judith A Blanchard (President): $397,020 total reported compensation
  • Jane Bavineau (VP Senior Svcs): $173,623 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Our mission is to provide services which enable the elderly to live with dignity and independence.

What it reported doing in 2014

Home Care - Sheltering Arms Senior Services utilizes experienced personal care assistants and certified nurse's aides to assist older adults and family caregivers by providing personal care, home management and respite care services. An initial assessment is conducted in the home of each potential client by a Client Care Coordinator and an individual care plan is developed that addresses the unique home and personal care needs of each individual. The assessment also allows staff to determine any other additional services the client might need to help them remain independent at home. Throughout the year, 119 elderly individuals received home care services which included light housekeeping duties, meal preparation, feeding, bathing, grooming and transportation to and from doctors, grocery stores, etc. In addition, 177 caregivers were served through the Home Care program.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 94% 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. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 77
  • Transparency & Controls: 75
  • Accountability: 76
  • Sustainability: 12
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 82.8%; rating input score 83
  • Program expense ratio: 75.3%; rating input score 75
  • Fundraising efficiency: $14.65 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 66.7%; rating input score 67; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -9.5%; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 3.8%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 1.1% per year; rating input score 100; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -50% per year; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -19.1% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 82.8% of revenue deployed · 75.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 2 of 3 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $4.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $397K · 4 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 29 of 29 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2009 to 2014
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 11/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 55/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: CEO compensation review process not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 58/100.