Family Services of Western Pennsylvania

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
250965341
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Phone
4123422300
Rating
50
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Human Services

Reported finances

Revenue
$67,317
Expenses
$2,516
Assets
$5,814,695
Liabilities
$55,589

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

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DOUGLAS W MUETZEL (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • DOUGLAS W MUETZEL (CEO): $399,517 total reported compensation
  • EMILY J PIETRZAK (CFO): $218,691 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To empower children, adults and families by providing transformational quality whole person care.

What it reported doing in 2024

Fswp constructed a four-floor affordable housing apartment building with co-located behavioral health services. The building includes thirty-six one, two and three bedroom apartments. The embedded supportive housing services are provided by wfs. The residential portion of the building was financed, in part, by amounts provided pursuant to the low-income housing tax credit program. Fswp also secured grant funding and loaned it to the construction project. Fswp is considered the developer of the project for the residential portion and aspire development properties gp llc, of which fswp is the sole member, is the developer for the commercial side of the building. The commercial side holds offices for wfs staff and was funded, in part, by amounts provided pursuant to the new markets tax credit program. The goal in constructing the building is to link residents to services provided by wfs staff, which is expected to increase the tenure of the residents of the building; thereby, minimizing vacancies. This model is seen as an innovative solution to improve the sense of community and increase the capacities of the tenants in the building. The building opened in the fall of 2020.

Operating model

Revenue model
Investment-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from recurring investment income.
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

MIXED - Most voting board members are independent and revenue comfortably covers expenses. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 36
  • Transparency & Controls: 55
  • Accountability: 75
  • Sustainability: 79
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 3.7%; rating input score 4
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 18th 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: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: No; rating input score 0

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 80%; rating input score 80; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • 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: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 96.3%; rating input score 99; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2,311.09; rating input score 99; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 1,918.9%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -27.3% per year; rating input score 0; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -17.8% per year; rating input score 0; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -5.4% per year; rating input score 0; 20th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 3.7% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 5 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $3K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $400K · 6 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 13 of 14 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Related organizations: 11 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 4/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Related-party transparency scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 1/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 28/100.