The Barbara Stone Foundation
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 570933503
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2015–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Greenville, SC, USA
- Phone
- 8642338844
- Rating
- 68
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Mental Health Treatment F31 Psychiatric, Mental Health Hospital
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $397,466
- Expenses
- $432,757
- Assets
- $821,238
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
14 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- LARA CEISEL (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- LARA CEISEL (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $81,000 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The primary charitable purpose of this corporation shall be to support services for individuals residing in greenville county who have developmental disabilities, autism, or head and spinal cord injury, and to borrow, hold, buy, sell, lease, lend, manage, invest, and use funds and property for these services.
What it reported doing in 2024
Greenvillecan.orgcan stands for collaborative action network. We are a network of self advocates, service providers, families, caregivers, and professionals who work collaboratively to take actions that will make our community a better place to live for individuals with special needs and disabilities.making our community a better place to live for people with disabilities is a group effort and everyone is welcome and encouraged to join along. Every organization and individual who joins our email list becomes part of greenville can and part of the movement. When we add our voices, our ideas, and our efforts together, we can make greenville a more equitable and inclusive place for people with disabilities to live.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 62% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 79% for direct work, and 21% for grants.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 67
- Transparency & Controls: 72
- Accountability: 63
- Sustainability: 40
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 72.9%; rating input score 73
- Program expense ratio: 65.9%; rating input score 66
- Fundraising efficiency: $9.5 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 83.3%; rating input score 83; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 50.8%; rating input score 51; 43rd 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: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: Fail
- Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -8.9%; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.9; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 18.7%; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 7% per year; rating input score 100; 61st percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 4.6% per year; rating input score 100; 50th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 3% per year; rating input score 100; 38th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 72.9% of revenue deployed · 65.9% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 1 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $285K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $81K · 14 people listed
- Consistency: 23 of 25 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
- Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
- Filing history: 9 filing years from 2015 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 3 filed related-organization links
- 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 7 not reported.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 51/100.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 38/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 24/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 58/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 20/100.