Care2 Fund at Usli Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
453516159
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Wayne, PA, USA
Phone
8005235545
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Human Service Organizations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$898,818
Expenses
$881,211
Assets
$344,926
Liabilities
$10,960

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Sasha D Moul (President)

People named in this filing

  • Thomas P Nerney (Chairman)
  • Joseph J McLaughlin Jr (Director)
  • Stephen M Lyons (Director)

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 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To provide the employees of USLI the opportunity to request donations to be made to charities and causes to which they have a direct, personal connection, and to serve as a portal for funds raised from USLI employees and customers to support a broad range of charitable causes and organizations.

What it reported doing in 2025

The CARE2 Fund at USLI Inc original mission is to allow employees of United States Liability Insurance Company to request donations to be made to organizations or causes to which they have a personal connection. These causes include medical support for critically ill children to support for individuals and teams participating in fundraising events to support for community and outreach organizations such as animal shelters, counseling centers, domestic violence centers, and feeding programs. All donations range from $500 to $1,500 per cause. In 2025, donations were made to 169 charitable organizations and 20 individuals or families in need of specific assistance: twelve to assist medical patients and their families with medical or other expenses; four to help with emergency expenses after a fire and four to help cover funeral and living expenses after a sudden death.

Operating model

Revenue model
Affiliate-supported. 62% of the money available for current operations came from contributions from related organizations.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% 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 available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 97
  • Transparency & Controls: 86
  • Accountability: 51
  • Sustainability: 38
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 96.8%; rating input score 97
  • Program expense ratio: 98.7%; rating input score 99
  • Fundraising efficiency: $401.03 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 85.9%; rating input score 86; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 66.7%; rating input score 67; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
    • 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: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 2%; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.39; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -14.8% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -19.6% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -6.9% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 96.8% of revenue deployed · 98.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 2 of 3 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $870K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 44 of 45 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2020 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 14 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 15 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.

  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 36/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 20/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 48/100.