South Arkansas Youth Services Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
710491032
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2015
Forms available
Form 990 2015
Location
Magnolia, AR, USA
Phone
8702346550
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Prison Alternatives

Reported finances

Revenue
$14,505,705
Expenses
$15,100,757
Assets
$2,602,399
Liabilities
$2,095,661

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

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • LARRY LUNDEEN (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • JERRY WALSH (EXEC DIRECT): $171,031 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Providing services to delinquent and at-risk youth

What it reported doing in 2015

Serious offenders program, dermontt: residential treatment for youth in the custody of the ar div of youth services. Average length of stay is 9 mos for youth under the age of 18; two years for youth between the ages of 18 and 21. Total number of contracted beds is 30 for each age group. This program provided 26,550 client/days of residential services this year. Expenses 4,061,932. Behaviorial health program (medicaid): contract treatment of youth under specified criteria. This program provided 77,908 units of service. Expenses 1,939,606. Community involvement program: this program is designed to pay necessary expenditures related to all programs, but cannot be specifically or reasonably allocated to the various programs. Total expenditures including interest of 34,417 and legal fees of 24,000 is 192,209. Normally outside services provides funding for these expenditures.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 100% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
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

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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 80
  • Transparency & Controls: 60
  • Accountability: 79
  • Sustainability: 21
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 92%; rating input score 92
  • Program expense ratio: 88.4%; rating input score 88
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

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: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -4.1%; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.17; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.81; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 1.1%; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 0.4% per year; rating input score 100; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -0.2% per year; rating input score 0; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4.8% per year; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 92% of revenue deployed · 88.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $13.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $171K · 15 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $217K reported
  • Consistency: 29 of 29 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2009 to 2015
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 16/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 5/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 16/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.