Sweeney Youth Homes

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
770392139
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2015
Forms available
Form 990 2015
Location
Santa Barbara, CA, USA
Phone
8055630448
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Residential Care & Adult Day Programs

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,552,483
Expenses
$1,583,904
Assets
$2,440,117
Liabilities
$651,846

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

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Larry Costa (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Dr Sharon Sweeney (Exec.Director, Secretary): $164,499 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Sweeney Youth Homes is a non-profit, non-sectarian community service agency designed to provide residential treatment for emotionally disturbed children, including the population of conduct disordered and sex offender males aged 10 through 18 and to provide service for children with emotional, behavioral, personality, social or academic problems. The environment is based on developing maturity, learning educational skills and therapeutically resolving existing psychological problems.

What it reported doing in 2015

Residential Care - Provide Residential care and treatment for emotionally disturbed adolescent boys and girls between the ages of 11-18. Sweeney operates three group homes throughout Santa Barbara County, which provide residential treatment to adolescent girls who are in trouble with running away, drugs, defiance, truancy, and abuse. Sweeney also provides residential treatment to adolescent boys who have molestation, incest, and other sexual issues. Most of the adolescent boys have been abused sexually and have chosen to act out sexually themselves. 31 clients were serviced and 5,294 days of care provided.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 99% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
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. Revenue has declined or grown slowly and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 79
  • Transparency & Controls: 74
  • Accountability: 85
  • Sustainability: 40
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 89.8%; rating input score 90
  • Program expense ratio: 88%; rating input score 88
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 75%; rating input score 75; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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%; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.54; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.27; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 10.4%; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 12.7% per year; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -0.2% per year; rating input score 0; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -1.9% per year; rating input score 0; 26th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 89.8% of revenue deployed · 88% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 4 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $164K · 4 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 30 of 30 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2014 to 2015
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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 — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 30/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 34/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 34/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.
  • High — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization is not authorized to operate as a charity in California.