Assn for Hunterdon Developmental Center

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
237062095
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2021
Forms available
Form 990 2021, Form 990-EZ 2010
Location
Cedar Grove, NJ, USA
Phone
9735719580
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$20,958
Expenses
$20,139
Assets
$1,405,389
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2021. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ELAINE FERGUSON (President)
  • SHERI JOYNER (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • MILISSA WILK LARSTANNA (Trustee)
  • ED BROGAN (Trustee)
  • SUSAN THOMPSON (PAST TREAS.)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2021. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To develop or further the interests and welfare of the residents at the New Jersey Hunterdon Developmental Center at Clinton, NJ (center). To gain better understanding of the Center's problems, and to cooperate with the Superintendent and his staff in their corrections or solutions. To further the advancement of study, research and training in the filed of mental retardation. To act as an advocate when necessary for all problems relating to the welfare of the residents of the Center and their parents or guardians. To earn, solicit and receive funds for the accomplishment of the aforementioned purposes.

What it reported doing in 2021

Grants for projects benefiting the residents of Hunterdon Developmental Center (a NJ State Institution) with a population of approximately 450 ambulatory & non ambulatory people.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 60% of its reported program spending out as 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 fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 75
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 58
  • Sustainability: 69
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 85.1%; rating input score 85
  • Program expense ratio: 72.8%; rating input score 73
  • Fundraising efficiency: $3.17 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 0 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Fail
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 3.9%; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 69.78; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -8.8% per year; rating input score 0; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -2.9% per year; rating input score 0; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.9% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 85.1% of revenue deployed · 72.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 0 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $15K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 13 people listed
  • Consistency: 16 of 16 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2011 to 2021
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 7 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 28/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 55/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.