Sunny Glen Children's Home

Legal name: Sunny Glen Children's Home Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
741260706
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
San Benito, TX, US
Phone
(956) 399-5356
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Residential Care & Adult Day Programs

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$66,416,343
Expenses
$64,626,799
Assets
$19,784,466
Liabilities
$12,003,751

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

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Brandon C Palmer (CEO)
  • David Sauceda (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Brandon C Palmer (CEO): $290,800 total reported compensation
  • Rosalinda Mercado (COO): $173,000 total reported compensation
  • Christopher Gonzales (CAO): $140,103 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Providing a place of hope for every child

What it reported doing in 2024

Sunny Glen is licensed by the state of Texas to provide 24 hour residential care. Children referred to Sunny Glen originate from communities in Texas. Sunny Glen serves male and female children newborn to 17. Sunny Glen serves children with various needs-basic, moderate and specialized levels. Sunny Glen utilized the house parent model of care which attempts to simulate healthy activities normally found in the lives of children in their natural home environments. House parents serve as positive role models, set clear and consistent expectations, and provide each child with a christian family environment where each child is nurtured, supervised and instructed.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 97% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 77
  • Transparency & Controls: 69
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 36
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 82.9%; rating input score 83
  • Program expense ratio: 85.2%; rating input score 85
  • Fundraising efficiency: $6.03 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 87.5%; rating input score 88; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • 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; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 2.7%; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.31; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.61; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 1.5%; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 25.8% per year; rating input score 100; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 25.7% per year; rating input score 100; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 13.4% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 6 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 82.9% of revenue deployed · 85.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $55M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $291K · 16 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $2.7M reported
  • Consistency: 30 of 32 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 14 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 27/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 10/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 46/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 28/100.