Crispus Attucks Association of York Pa
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 231365320
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2009–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
- Location
- York, PA, USA
- Phone
- 7178483610
- Rating
- 84
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Housing Rehabilitation
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $8,245,020
- Expenses
- $7,446,681
- Assets
- $35,239,779
- Liabilities
- $15,737,813
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
16 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- VERNON BRACEY (PRESIDENT)
- DANIEL P ELBY (VICE PRESIDENT)
- ROBERT L SIMPSON (CEO)
Highest reported compensation
- DONNA M WILLIAMS (CFO): $127,250 total reported compensation
- ROBERT L SIMPSON (CEO): $121,290 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 crispus attucks association of york, Pennsylvania is a comprehensive non-profit entity that provides education services, human services, community development and affordable housing that enhances the quality of life for a diverse population.
What it reported doing in 2024
Center for employment and training - the crispus attucks center for employment and training (cacet) has been providing adult education, job training, placement services, and other related support services since 1986. Through the assistance of the united way and other funding sources (grants and tax credits) we are able to provide employment services free of charge to residents of york city and surrounding municipalities. Cacet staff members assist economically and socially challenged individuals with one or more barriers to employment and offer them the necessary tools to improve their quality of life through one or more services. We serve the "hardest to employ" populations (i.e. Welfare recipients, unskilled to minimally skilled workers, ex-offenders, recovering substance abusers, high school drop-outs, etc.) and have a proven record in transitioning them into unsubsidized employment. A core belief of cacet is that disadvantaged residents have a better chance of transitioning toward a higher level of self-sufficiency through continuing education and training designed to prepare them for career oriented employment, not just minimum wage jobs.the cacet empowers its clients to reach a higher level of self-sufficiency through education, training, career counseling, and job placement. Cacet is open to everyone, and special attention is directed toward minority, unskilled, under-skilled, unemployed, and underemployed individuals. To accomplish this, cacet collaborates with other united way agencies, york area businesses, and local education and training facilities. The center provides direct and indirect referral services to more than 267 participants each year through the following programs and services: *community connections(cc) including orientations, workshops, career counseling, employment and training referrals, educational services, resume assistance, and job placement*supportive services such as bus passes, work attire, and human service agency referrals (i.e. Domestic violence, substance abuse, homelessness, childcare, etc.)*intensive case management including needs assessment, identification of barriers to employment, and finding ways to overcome those barriers. *youth employment services (yes) program for youth and young adults up to age 24. *the summer work experience program (scea) connecting youth in york county with summer employment training, career development, and on-site workplace experiences for employment and training. *the senior employment services program offers job training and job placement to the senior population--aged 55 years and older.
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 95% 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
STRONG - 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 assets have declined or grown slowly.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 80
- Transparency & Controls: 90
- Accountability: 91
- Sustainability: 64
- Growth: 80
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 80.4%; rating input score 80
- Program expense ratio: 86.7%; rating input score 87
- Fundraising efficiency: $20.69 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 94.4%; rating input score 94; 24th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Fail
- 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: 9.7%; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.73; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.45; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 3.3%; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 0.2% per year; rating input score 100; 14th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 3.1% per year; rating input score 100; 27th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -0.4% per year; rating input score 0; 11th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 80.4% of revenue deployed · 86.7% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 14 of 14 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 5 filed program accomplishments · $6.5M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $127K · 16 people listed
- Consistency: 35 of 36 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
- Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 3 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.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 24/100.