Youth Villages - Germaine Lawrence Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
042630584
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2014
Forms available
Form 990 2014
Location
Memphis, TN, USA
Phone
9012515000
Rating
79
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Mental Health Treatment F31 Psychiatric, Mental Health Hospital

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$13,520,249
Expenses
$13,520,249
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • PATRICK LAWLER (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • PATRICK LAWLER (CEO): $634,668 total reported compensation
  • GREG GREGORY (CFO): $378,094 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Youth villages - germaine lawrence, inc. Helps children and families live successfully.

What it reported doing in 2014

Youth villages - germaine lawrence, inc. Has attained a successful discharge rate of 86% and an overall satisfaction rate of 93% from families served.the most restrictive level of care offered by the organization is the residential treament programs which provide treatment in a secured residential setting to the most seriously troubled youth. All residential treament allows for educational, social, and recreational opportunities. Children are accepted into the residential programs when they are unable to be successful in their homes or in other placements such as foster care. Residential campuses are located in Tennessee and Massachusetts and serve children from many other states, including Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Mississippi, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Texas, and the district of columbia. Payments for residential services are provided through contracts and/or through private insurance carriers as services are rendered.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 80% 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.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 88
  • Transparency & Controls: 68
  • Accountability: 91
  • Sustainability: 25
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 99.4%; rating input score 99
  • Program expense ratio: 99.4%; rating input score 99
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 71st 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; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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%; rating input score 30; 30th 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: 0.3%; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 9.4% per year; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.9% per year; rating input score 100; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -21.7% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 99.4% of revenue deployed · 99.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 4 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $13.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $635K · 6 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 4 contractors listed · $907K reported
  • Consistency: 29 of 30 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2009 to 2014
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 30/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D land buildings reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.