Commission on Economic Opportunity of Luzerne County

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
231653093
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Wilkesbarre, PA, USA
Phone
5708260510
Rating
86
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Housing Support

Reported finances

Revenue
$46,165,483
Expenses
$45,411,331
Assets
$25,207,656
Liabilities
$7,330,020

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

Leadership & pay

18 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ATTORNEY DAVID AIKENS (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • MARIE MCCORMICK (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • ATTORNEY JOSEPH CARMODY (PRESIDENT)
  • JENNIFER WARABAK (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • JENNIFER WARABAK (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $170,791 total reported compensation
  • RODERICK BLAINE (KEY EMPLOYEE): $165,145 total reported compensation
  • GRETCHEN HUNT GREAVES (KEY EMPLOYEE): $151,657 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 mission of the organization to promote self-sufficiency among low-income and vulnerable populations by confronting the causes and reducing the effects of poverty.

What it reported doing in 2024

Food bank/nutrition services: distributes donated and purchased food product to a network of 370 food distribution partners. Promotes healthy nutrition among low income and vulnerable populations in our 4 county regions, especially children and senior citizens. Program funding includes federal, state and private donors; including food companies, businesses, foundations, and individuals. The food bank received 6,779,610 lbs. Of donated food product valued at $11,551,062; supplemental food boxes provided to approx. 1,777 seniors monthly; agency food pantries provided 29,796 units of service to 1,983 unique families; thanksgiving distribution provided to 6,889 families; nutrition education sessions reached 7,406 school-aged children, 2,449 adults and elderly.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 45% for direct work, and 55% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 95
  • Transparency & Controls: 75
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 40
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 95.5%; rating input score 95
  • Program expense ratio: 97%; rating input score 97
  • Fundraising efficiency: $166.64 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd 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; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • 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: 1.6%; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.56; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.29; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 1.1%; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 10.2% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8.2% per year; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6.8% per year; rating input score 100; 48th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 95.5% of revenue deployed · 97% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 15 of 15 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $44.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $171K · 18 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $2.4M reported
  • Consistency: 28 of 29 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 41/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 18/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 47/100.