Communities in Schools of Eastern Pennsylvania Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
232222874
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Allentown, PA, USA
Phone
4848348830
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$8,257,772
Expenses
$7,404,083
Assets
$9,416,513
Liabilities
$1,346,229

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

Leadership & pay

21 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • TIMOTHY MULLIGAN (PRESIDENT &)

Highest reported compensation

  • TIMOTHY MULLIGAN (PRESIDENT &): $189,110 total reported compensation
  • MICHAEL MCCORRISTIN (VICE PRESIDE): $182,680 total reported compensation
  • MARIA ESPOSITO (VICE PRESIDE): $125,863 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 organization's mission is to surround students with a community of support, empowering them to stay in school and achieve in life.

What it reported doing in 2024

Integrated student supports: integrated student supports (iss) is a shorthand for how we bring together the different kinds of resources, relationships, and services that students and their families need to come to school ready to learn. Our evidence- based model places site coordinators directly in each of our schools, where they form trusting relationships with students, diminishing the nonacademic barriers that keep kids from succeeding in school. Site coordinators offer support at three different levels: school-wide, small-group, and one-on- one. Site coordinators work together with students, family members, teachers, and guidance counselors to help students set goals to improve academics, behavior, and/or attendance. The model of iss follows a continued cycle of assessment, planning, support, monitoring, and evaluation: 1. Needs assessment: site coordinator analyzes multiple sources of data to identify key needs of school and individual students. 2. Planning: site coordinators lead their support team in developing a site plan that prioritizes supports for academic and non-academic needs. 3. Integrated students supports: site coordinator and partners deliver support to school, students, and families through three different tiers. Tier i supports target school-wide goals (tier i example: clothing drive, family engagement night). Tier ii supports target small groups of at-risk students who share a common need (tier ii example: tutoring, grief counseling group). Tier iii supports target a smaller population of referred, high-need students who receive intensive one-on-one case- management. 4. Monitoring and adjusting: site coordinator continuously monitors student and school progress and adjusts supports to optimize results. 5. Evaluation: site coordinator continues assessment of partners and student supports to demonstrate results and improve practice.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

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 fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 72
  • Transparency & Controls: 62
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 52
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 75%; rating input score 75
  • Program expense ratio: 82.6%; rating input score 83
  • Fundraising efficiency: $6.03 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.1%; rating input score 94; 23rd 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: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: 10.3%; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.27; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.14; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 9.8%; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 10.6% per year; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 12.4% per year; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 22.1% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 75% of revenue deployed · 82.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 16 of 16 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $6.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $189K · 21 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 32 of 33 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 22/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 45/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 30/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 51/100.