Teen Esteem

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
201598494
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2013
Location
Danville, CA, USA
Phone
9258559941
Rating
56
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Children's, Youth Services

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$669,470
Expenses
$649,029
Assets
$87,215
Liabilities
$6,135

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Kellie Elloitt (CEO)
  • Angela Plummer (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Kellie Elloitt (CEO): $124,513 total reported compensation
  • Angela Plummer (Executive Director): $27,830 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Teen Esteem educates and empowers students, educators, families, and the community on challenges young people face, emphasizing the importance of respect for self and others. Our dynamic, relevant, presentations address today's challenges students(see Cont in sch O)

What it reported doing in 2024

Our core programs of K-12 classroom presentations and assemblies equip kids and teens with tools and resources to make positive life choices and avoid high risk decisions. Our programs serve Alameda and Contra Costa Counties - K-12 schools. 2024-25 school year outreach = 20,163 students, 469 classroom presentations and 42 school assemblies. Teen Esteem's trained speakers engage with students using proprietary curriculum that's regularly updated with timely data and statistics to address current issues confronting our youth. We discuss real-life issues that are not fully explored in today'shealth or social studies classes: anxiety, depression, cyberbullying, pornography, social media addiction, prescription drug abuse, alcohol, marijuana, vaping, self-worth andhealthy relationships. MEASUREMENT TOOLS: TE tracks the number of schools and students reached and asks middle and high school participants to complete a survey which indicates our presentation's impact. We also collect feedback from teachers and school administrators. We record the results to help refine our curriculum and reflect the success of the programs to secure grant funding from individuals and foundations tosustain our work.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 83% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and program spending has grown recently. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 33
  • Transparency & Controls: 86
  • Accountability: 52
  • Sustainability: 30
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 35.2%; rating input score 35
  • Program expense ratio: 35.8%; rating input score 36
  • Fundraising efficiency: $3.3 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 45.5%; rating input score 45; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 3.1%; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.13; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.07; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 23.5%; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 6.2% per year; rating input score 100; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 11.7% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 10% per year; rating input score 100; 59th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 35.2% of revenue deployed · 35.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 11 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $233K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $125K · 12 people listed
  • Consistency: 28 of 29 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2014 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 35/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 36/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 45/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 10/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 6/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 45/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 11/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 47/100.