Teen Court of Sarasota Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
650108304
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2009
Location
Sarasota, FL, USA
Phone
9418618466
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,304,780
Expenses
$1,295,134
Assets
$1,536,057
Liabilities
$195,487

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

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • KATY MCBRAYER (PRESIDENT)
  • MEGAN LEAF (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • HEATHER TODD (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • HEATHER TODD (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $130,000 total reported compensation
  • DEVIN EPPS (PROGRAM OFFICER): $89,000 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To introduce area youth to activities and services that promote feelings of self-esteem and self improvement when they develop a healthy attitude toward authority. All organizational activities instill and teach the benefits of law abiding citizenship and civic engagement.

What it reported doing in 2024

Teen court is a sentencing body that provides intervention and diversion services for at-risk youth who have admitted guilt to a criminal charge, traffic offense, or school rule violation. Referrals undergo intensive screening and must comply with program rules or be sent into the juvenile justice system. Successful completion provides the youth with a record of a dismissed charge instead of a conviction record. Student volunteers also benefit from exposure to law related education, community service and the benefits of law abiding citizenship.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 68% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 97% 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. The filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 80
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 91
  • Sustainability: 39
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 84.3%; rating input score 84
  • Program expense ratio: 84.8%; rating input score 85
  • Fundraising efficiency: $11.29 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.1%; rating input score 94; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 0%; rating input score 0; 13th 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: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 0.7%; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.19; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.13; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 16.9%; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 14.5% per year; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 10% per year; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 11.7% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 84.3% of revenue deployed · 84.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $1.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $130K · 14 people listed
  • Consistency: 29 of 30 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 42/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 38/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 48/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 19/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 39/100.