Don Guanella Village

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
231596874
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2018
Forms available
Form 990 2018
Location
Philadelphia, PA, USA
Phone
2155873892
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Housing, Shelter N.E.C.

Reported finances

Revenue
$18,005,610
Expenses
$20,007,197
Assets
$14,853,994
Liabilities
$7,732,992

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2018. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

29 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Bishop John J McIntyre (President of Board)
  • Rev Msgr Paul Kennedy (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Mr James Amato (Ex. Vice Pres of Board): $210,349 total reported compensation
  • Mr Francis Swiacki (Director Dev. Prog): $166,444 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2018. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Community group homes for adult men with intellectual disabilities and mini-campus for more intensive care for medically fragile individuals. Round-the-clock nursing support, personal care, life and social skills, physical and behavioral therapy, religious services

What it reported doing in 2018

Don Guanella Village is now a community based and residential facility that has the capacity to provide community based services for 65 developmentally disabled adult men between 21 and 71 years of age. In addition, approximately 30 men are served in three campus based congregate intermediate care facilities on a campus in Springfield, PA.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 99% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
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 - 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: 87
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 98
  • Sustainability: 27
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 94.4%; rating input score 94
  • Fundraising efficiency: $1.04 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd 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: 96.2%; rating input score 96; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: -11.1%; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.74; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.52; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 1%; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -0.8% per year; rating input score 0; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 0.8% per year; rating input score 100; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -0.2% per year; rating input score 0; 18th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 94.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 25 of 26 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $18.9M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $210K · 29 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 3 contractors listed · $521K reported
  • Consistency: 29 of 29 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2009 to 2018
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 27 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 3/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 7/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 34/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 31/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.