Forsight Vision

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
231365986
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2016
Forms available
Form 990 2016
Location
York, PA, USA
Phone
7178481690
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Eye Diseases, Blindness and Vision Impairments

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,009,878
Expenses
$1,667,998
Assets
$6,529,873
Liabilities
$598,244

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • WILLIAM H RHINESMITH (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • WILLIAM H RHINESMITH (PRESIDENT): $164,949 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Forsight vision provides specialized services designed to prevent, prepare for and manage loss of vision while building awareness within our community.

What it reported doing in 2016

The organization employs individuals who are legally blind to provide employment opportunities in a service environment through government & private contracts. For fiscal year 2016 forsight vision provided 24,108 hours of employment to persons who are legally blind. A total of 17 legally blind persons were employed in either a full or part time capacity. Forsight vision is the exclusive recycler of plastic mailing containers, and also cleans and reformats the cartridges of the talking books used by the national library of congress for its talking book program. Forsight vision also employs others in its document imaging department. Forsight vision received 3,409 as an award for employee retention in 2016 from nib.

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 the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 82
  • Transparency & Controls: 74
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 35
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 74.2%; rating input score 74
  • Fundraising efficiency: $4.63 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • 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: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -65.2%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.91; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.09; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 9.9%; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 6.6% per year; rating input score 100; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -12.5% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 1.4% per year; rating input score 100; 37th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 74.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $1.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $165K · 11 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 33 of 33 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2011 to 2016
  • 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 17/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 2/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 36/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 52/100.