Ssep Dba Sweet Success Extension Program

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
342044369
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2021
Forms available
Form 990 2021, Form 990-EZ 2019
Location
Chico, CA, USA
Phone
8007322387
Rating
63
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Specifically Named Diseases

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$45,318
Expenses
$84,435
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2021. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CYNTHIA PARKE RNC CNM MSN (President)
  • GLADYS RAMOS MD (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • JULIE B DALEY RN MS CDE (CO-SECRETARY): $5,625 total reported compensation
  • LIZ MILLER RN BSN MS CDEC (Director): $2,625 total reported compensation
  • GEETHA RAO MS RD CDE (Director): $2,350 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2021. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To improve pregnancy outcomes and long-term quality of life for women with diabetes and their offspring, which extend beyond birth for both mother and child.

What it reported doing in 2021

Work with provider groups to increase their knowledge and delivery of care by encouraging providers to involve the entire health care system, community and patient at all levels in supporting lifestyle changes that foster improved long-term health and quality of life. Health education information was developed in booklets or on cds and sold for about 15% over production cost. Many health education tools are provided at no cost by downloading from the website.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 94% 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. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 79
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 10
  • Sustainability: 13
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 70.4%; rating input score 70
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -86.3%; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 13.4%; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 42.4% per year; rating input score 100; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -27.9% per year; rating input score 0; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -37% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 70.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 9 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $59K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $6K · 9 people listed
  • Consistency: 19 of 19 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2020 to 2021
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • 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 — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 21/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 3/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 15/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization is recorded as not currently operating in California.