Berks County Community Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
232769892
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
Location
Reading, PA, USA
Phone
6106852223
Rating
79
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Community Foundations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$20,663,393
Expenses
$9,112,365
Assets
$154,855,824
Liabilities
$8,452,457

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

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • KEVIN K MURPHY (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • KEVIN K MURPHY (PRESIDENT): $327,487 total reported compensation
  • FRANCES A AITKEN (TREASURER & CHIEF OPERATIN): $224,463 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To promote philanthropy and improve the quality of life for residents of berks county.

What it reported doing in 2024

Berks county community foundation helps people find the best way to make charitable gifts to support the community. The community foundation manages over 380 different funds, each established with a specific purpose determined by the original donor. Some donors have decided it is best to leave the use of the funds to the discretion of the community foundation board. In this way, the community foundation can remain flexible and responsive to community needs.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 84% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 82% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of total spending goes to programs and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 66
  • Transparency & Controls: 80
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 87
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 57.9%; rating input score 58
  • Program expense ratio: 82.5%; rating input score 83
  • Fundraising efficiency: $21.78 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 89.5%; rating input score 89; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 6 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Pass
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Fail
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Pass
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 97.5%; rating input score 98; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 55.9%; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 16.99; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.05; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 6.1%; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 6.9% per year; rating input score 100; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8.6% per year; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8.4% per year; rating input score 100; 57th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 57.9% of revenue deployed · 82.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 12 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $7.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $327K · 13 people listed · 6 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 39 of 41 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 11 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 180 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 181 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 58/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 6 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 59/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 42/100.
  • 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.