Boys & Girls Club of Clifton Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
221589377
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
Location
Clifton, NJ, USA
Phone
9737730966
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Boys and Girls Clubs

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$6,740,761
Expenses
$7,300,048
Assets
$9,166,011
Liabilities
$696,195

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

Leadership & pay

21 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • KATRINA HYDE ESQ (PRESIDENT)
  • JOHN FETTE (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • GABRIEL BLAU (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER)

Highest reported compensation

  • GABRIEL BLAU (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER): $193,496 total reported compensation
  • MAUREEN CAMERON (CHIEF DEVELOPMENT OFFICER): $115,107 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 boys and girls club of clifton is dedicated to providing programs and services in a safe, supervised environment, to inspire and enable all young people of our community to realize their full potential as caring, productive and responsible citizens.

What it reported doing in 2024

Early child care - pre-k program geared toward getting children accustomed to playing and working together as we prepare them for kindergarten. Our pre-k program focuses on educational as well as recreational activities. These activities include art, reading readiness, computer familiarization and swimming lessons.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 70% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% 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 most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 77
  • Transparency & Controls: 50
  • Accountability: 98
  • Sustainability: 35
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 88.6%; rating input score 89
  • Program expense ratio: 81.6%; rating input score 82
  • Fundraising efficiency: $1.32 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.4%; rating input score 94; 24th 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: 0%; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 96%; rating input score 96; 26th 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: -8.3%; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.26; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.08; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.2%; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 4.7% per year; rating input score 100; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5.2% per year; rating input score 100; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 2.4% per year; rating input score 100; 21st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 88.6% of revenue deployed · 81.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 24 of 25 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $6M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $193K · 21 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 35 of 37 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 2 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 3/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 15/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 45/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D expense reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 59/100.