Tumbleweed Center for Youth Development

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
237284153
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2016
Forms available
Form 990 2016
Location
Phoenix, AZ, USA
Phone
6022757852
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Children's, Youth Services

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$5,861,030
Expenses
$6,397,894
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • PAULA ADKINS (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER)

Highest reported compensation

  • PAULA ADKINS (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER): $77,524 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Tumbleweed had been helping young people get off the streets and move toward becoming a self-sufficient adult.

What it reported doing in 2016

Casa de suenos --three residential housing sites for up to 30 unaccompanied minor refugees referred to tumbleweed from the federal office of refugee resettlement orr. Having often been exposed to exploitation, human trafficking and violence, these child survivors get medical care, counseling, skills development, serves acculturation, language development and continuing education. This program was up for competitive renewal starting october 2016 but orr provided extensions through february 2017 citing a vague explanation about the department being held up with contract renewals. In february, line staff were the first individuals informed by our assigned federal agents that the contract was not going to renew and we had one week to assist in the transfer of client cases. From july 2016 through february 2017, 102 clients were served in this program.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 77% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 84% 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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 75
  • Transparency & Controls: 93
  • Accountability: 80
  • Sustainability: 15
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 86.7%; rating input score 87
  • Program expense ratio: 77.2%; rating input score 77
  • Fundraising efficiency: $3.45 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 83.3%; rating input score 83; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • 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: -9.2%; rating input score 12; 12th 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: 1.2%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -8.3% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.3% per year; rating input score 100; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -9.3% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 86.7% of revenue deployed · 77.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 6 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $4.9M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $78K · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 23 of 23 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2010 to 2016
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 13/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 12/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.