Social Services Management Consulting Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
680567586
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2012–2014
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2014
Location
Cleburne, TX, USA
Phone
8173732092
Rating
84
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Housing Development, Construction, Management

Reported finances

Revenue
$23,465
Expenses
$24,702
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$35,252

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

Leadership & pay

1 person listed

People named in this filing

  • PATSY L GOATES (Executive Direc)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

To establish and develop a community service program of education for the fostering and promotion of healthy families and healthy neighborhoods. The organization has or will develop programs for the education of family members in dealing with living skills and parenting skills to help keep families intact. Some of the educational programs will deal with the operation of residential community centers with organization and transportation to events which include summer youth programs. The organization will establish an information center to educate and aid families needing assistance. Some of the programs will include such things as job fairs, health fairs, G.E.D. classes, parenting classes, literacy classes, tutorials, religious education for all religious beliefs, training for ethnic traditions such as "Cinco de Mayo" and Black History. The classes will be at the varying apartment complexes and neighborhood community centers where the targeted population resides. In addition, there will

What it reported doing in 2014

Establish and developed a community service program of education for the fostering and promotion of healthy families and healthy neighborhoods. The organization had or developed programs for the education of family members in dealing with living skills and parenting skills to help keep families intact. Some of the educational programs dealt with the operation of residential community centers with organization and transportation to events which included summer youth programs. The organization established an information center to educate and aid families needing assistance. Some of the programs included such things as job fairs, health fairs, G.E.D. classes, parenting classes, literacy classes, tutorials, religious education for all religious beliefs, training for ethnic traditions such as "Cinco de Mayo" and Black History. The classes were held at the varying apartment complexes and neighborhood community centers where the targeted population resided. In addition, there were referrals to medical facilities and for medical supplies. There were counseling for families and children. Sessions included such things as play therapy and children's groups. There were limited funds for families who "fall through the cracks" in receiving welfare assistance for such items as food, clothing, utilities, gasoline and medicine. All program and areas of assistance went to needy people without regard for race, religious, sex or any other type of discrimination.

Operating model

Revenue model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent revenue detail to tell how this nonprofit funds its work.
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: 100
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 23
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -5.3%; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -28.4% per year; rating input score 0; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -6.9% per year; rating input score 0; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -150% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $25K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 1 people listed
  • Consistency: 7 of 7 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2012 to 2014
  • 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.

  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 35/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 1/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 57/100.