Special Kids Special Care Inc

What it reported doing in 2020

Family Support ProgramsIn 2020, the Family Support Program (FSP) was expanded to include the NICU Home Discharge Follow-up Phone Support Pilot Program (NICU Home). Seventy families, with 80 infants, were referred for support services, equipment, or infant supplies through the FSP. These families included four sets of twins and two sets of triplets. Eighty-eight percent of the infants were premature, and all were followed through the NICU Home Program. Due to the COVID crisis and family needs related to their infant's medical complexity, we received an increase in respite care requests due to social-emotional support needs and the need for special infant equipment. Fewer grants were from public health nurses for lactation support, but more were received from the NICU staff. We received most of our grant funds on June 1, 2020, leaving six months to provide families grants. We were still able to provide financial support grants for 26 families and NICU Home follow-up support for 64 families. Some families who were followed through the NICU Home Program also received Family Support Grants when such a need was identified. The amounts of the 26 Family Support Grants we provided were more substantial because of the infant's medical and family needs for respite care. Of the 26 Family Support Grants offered, nine were for respite care, 4 for special equipment, five lactation consultation, some with virtual visits and all with follow-up, 8 for infant cribs with infant supplies.Sixty-four families referred to the NICU Home Program were contacted by letter, phone call, or text after being discharged home from the NICU. The NICU Home Program plan had to be modified due to the COVID restrictions that eliminated anyone other than NICU staff and parents in the NICU. The goal had been to have a NICU Coordinator meet with families in the NICU, explain the program, and connect the family with a NICU Coordinator who would follow-up with the family soon after discharge. Instead, three experienced NICU family coordinators contracted to complete the follow-up contacts with the families. They completed orientation and training and assisted with adapting the NICU Home protocols for contacting families. The 64 families in the NICU Home Program were assigned to a coordinator for follow-up. Ninety-five percent of the families received a letter or phone call with a message if there was no answer. The initial phone call was followed-up by another phone call or text message. About 18% of those contacted responded that they were doing well or had no current needs. Five of the families identified the need for services through the Family Support Grant Program. Seven families could not be contacted due to a lack of a good phone number or incorrect address.The NICU Home Program was also modified based on the family response and feedback from the NICU Home Coordinators who contacted the families. Rather than contacting families at 3-4 weeks after discharge, it was determined that contact should occur soon after discharge (1-2 weeks) and 1-2 months and up to 6 months. Families may need support immediately after discharge from the NICU. Still, once family and other supports are gone, they may begin to feel isolated and depressed and not know who to contact. We also explored other options of connecting with families. Because of the differences in the Family Support Grant referral source from the public health nurses (13%) to the NICU discharge staff (83%), we saw a difference in the families' demographics. The premature infants' gestation was lower than the premature infants referred in the past, with 29 weeks compared with 32 weeks. This year fewer families were on Medicaid (33%), and more families had private insurance (43%) or private/Medicaid insurance (11%) or had no or unknown insurance (13%). More referrals were for Caucasian/Non-Hispanic families (64%), and fewer referrals were for Black families (14%), Asian families (6%), Latina families (2%). Race or ethn

Financial Efficiency

• Mission deployment rate: 92.4%; rating input score 92
• Program expense ratio: 77.9%; rating input score 78
• Fundraising efficiency: $9.41 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

• Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 19th percentile among comparable filings
• Pay-setting controls: Limited
• Foreign activity oversight: Limited
• Grant itemization coverage: 0%; rating input score 0; 21st percentile among comparable filings
• Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
• Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

• Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
• Governance controls: 5 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 71
  • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
  • Whistleblower policy: Pass
  • Document-retention policy: Pass
  • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
  • 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: -18.5%; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
• Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
• Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
• Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

• Program expense growth: 4.3% per year; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings
• Revenue growth: 3.6% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
• Asset growth: -11.9% per year; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings