Consumer Workforce Council
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 453577240
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2013–2013
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2013, Form 990-N 2012
- Location
- Harrisburg, PA, USA
- Phone
- 7178912120
- Rating
- 71
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Management & Technical Assistance
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $120,227
- Expenses
- $110,698
- Assets
- $21,101
- Liabilities
- $5,458
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2013. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
11 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- DANIEL STROUP (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
People named in this filing
- DANIEL STROUP (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
- GERMAN PARODI (CHAIRPERSON)
- FRED HESS (VICE-CHAIRPERSON)
Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2013. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To facilitate the availability and quality of personal care services for seniors and persons with a disability
What it reported doing in 2013
The pa consumer workforce council advocates improving the workforce providing in home support to over 2,000 seniors and/or people with disabilities, who are associated with five member agencies from across pa. We represent them in negotiations with the united homecare workers of pa, the union representing 1,500 attendants who make up the workforce. Activities include advocating for medicaid expansion in pa, acceptance of community first choice option and the balancing incentive programs as part of the affordable care act. We educate lawmakers, attendants, consumers, and the community at large to improve the system and empower consumer choice and control of their services.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- 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 - The filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 58
- Transparency & Controls: 100
- Sustainability: 37
- Growth: NotEnoughData
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 56.5%; rating input score 57
- Program expense ratio: 61.4%; rating input score 61
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 7.9%; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.19; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.26; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 55.5%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: Limited
- Asset growth: Limited
Details
- Where the money goes: 56.5% of revenue deployed · 61.4% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $68K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 11 people listed
- Consistency: 8 of 8 current checks pass
- Schedules: 3 filed schedules
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
- 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.
Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 57/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 19/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 2/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 24/100.
- High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.