Southstar Deborah House

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
454863289
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2012
Location
Chicago Heights, IL, USA
Phone
7087558030
Rating
65
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Housing Development, Construction, Management

Reported finances

Revenue
$45,601
Expenses
$72,905
Assets
$609,673
Liabilities
$98,256

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

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • RICK THIERNAU (PRESIDENT)
  • MIKE RYAN (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • KELLY BERARDELLI (PRESIDENT/CEO)
  • GUS VAN DEN BRINK (INTERIM PRESIDENT/CEO - LEFT 10/24)

Highest reported compensation

  • KELLY BERARDELLI (PRESIDENT/CEO): $196,543 total reported compensation
  • GUS VAN DEN BRINK (INTERIM PRESIDENT/CEO - LEFT 10/24): $191,357 total reported compensation
  • MARY GONZALEZ (CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER): $144,378 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Deborah house was formed in 2012 for the development and operation of a dwelling home for persons with developmental disabilities. Deborah house has six bedrooms and houses six adult men who are developmentally delayed. Deborah house is operated under section 811 of the national housing act and regulated by the u.s. Department of housing and urban development (hud) with respect to rental charges and operating methods. Deborah house's major program is its section 811 capital advance. Deborah house has also entered into a project rental assistance contract (prac) with hud to provide rent subsidies, and as a result, a significant portion of deborah house's rental income is received from hud. The project is managed by kmg management llc under an agreement approved by hud which provides for a monthly management fee.

What it reported doing in 2024

24-hour residential care services - community living services provides residential homes for developmentally disabled individuals in a neighborhood setting where participating in the community is emphasized.

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 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 - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 58
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 91
  • Sustainability: 33
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 76.4%; rating input score 76
  • Program expense ratio: 47.8%; rating input score 48
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: -59.9%; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 8.36; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.16; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 59.7%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 4.9% per year; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -26.6% per year; rating input score 0; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -2.2% per year; rating input score 0; 30th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 76.4% of revenue deployed · 47.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $35K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $197K · 9 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 22 of 22 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2013 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Related organizations: 3 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 48/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 27/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 59/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 6/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 16/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.