Syntaxis Youth Homes
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 310836511
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2011–2011
- Forms available
- Form 990 2011
- Location
- Columbus, OH, USA
- Phone
- 6148956818
- Rating confidence
- Limited
- Sector
- Residential Care & Adult Day Programs
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $851,749
- Expenses
- $1,793,238
- Assets
- $0
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2011. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
16 people listed
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2011. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Operation of youth homes
What it reported doing in 2011
Operate resident placement facilities for children from various counties in the state of Ohio and operate assessment and counciling services to children placed from various counties in the state of Ohio
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
- The available evidence is not sufficient to produce an overall rating for this filing. This is not a warning sign.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: NotEnoughData
- Transparency & Controls: 92
- Accountability: 5
- Sustainability: 7
- Growth: NotEnoughData
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: Limited
- Program expense ratio: Limited
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 87.5%; rating input score 88; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 1 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 11
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: Fail
- Other executive compensation review process: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -110.5%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
- Officer compensation ratio: 5.4%; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: Limited
- Asset growth: Limited
Details
- Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
- Governance: 0 of 15 board members independent · 1 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $1.6M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $46K · 16 people listed
- Consistency: 18 of 19 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes grants
- Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
- Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
Key Signals
Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.
- High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
- High — Accountability: Governance controls: 7 of 8 not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 1/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 57/100.