Franciscan Services Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
922192433
IRS 990 coverage
2023–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Hamburg, NY, USA
Phone
7166497900
Rating
62
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Undergraduate College (4-year)

Reported finances

Revenue
$27,534,825
Expenses
$24,834,332
Assets
$20,653,315
Liabilities
$19,236,406

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

Leadership & pay

18 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MICHAEL BROPHY (CEO)
  • MICHAEL GRAHAM (VALLEY COLLEGE PRESIDENT)
  • MATTHEW JENKINS (VALLEY VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • MICHAEL BROPHY (CEO): $417,367 total reported compensation
  • MICHAEL GRAHAM (VALLEY COLLEGE PRESIDENT): $263,228 total reported compensation
  • LYNN MIZANIN (VALLEY EXEC VP OF OPERATIONS): $201,486 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 support hilbert college, a New York chartered higher educational organization recognized under section 501(c)(3) of the internal revenue code of 1986 as amended from time to time or corresponding provisions of any future federal tax laws (the "code") in furthering its educational mission and to conduct any other activities as shall be appropriate in connection with the foregoing and as are lawful for charitable not-for-profit corporations.

What it reported doing in 2024

Through its disregarded entity, valley college, the organization's 14 postsecondary education programs provide training in business and medical careers at its campuses located in martinsburg and beckley, West Virginia, and cleveland and fairlawn, Ohio.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 95% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 94% 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 and most voting board members are independent. 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: 50
  • Transparency & Controls: 68
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 46
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 54.1%; rating input score 54
  • Program expense ratio: 58.6%; rating input score 59
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

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: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 88.9%; rating input score 89; 21st 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: 9.8%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.83; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.93; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 6.1%; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -28.7% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 0.2% per year; rating input score 100; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -5.9% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 54.1% of revenue deployed · 58.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 9 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $14.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $417K · 18 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 4 contractors listed · $1.7M reported
  • Consistency: 31 of 31 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2023 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 9 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 2 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 54/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 59/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 30/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 8/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 42/100.