Frontier Community Services

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
920114675
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Soldotna, AK, USA
Phone
9072626331
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Developmentally Disabled Centers

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$8,570,665
Expenses
$9,149,856
Assets
$6,425,210
Liabilities
$938,393

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

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CAREY DAVID (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • FAULKNER AMANDA (EXECUTIVE DI): $175,021 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 mission of frontier community services (fcs) is to provide quality, individualized home and community based services for people of all ages who are at risk of, or experiencing a disabling condition, in order to minimize the need for institutional care. Fcs will continue to develop as a sound quality human service organizatin by; providing services that are needed to support individual and families to live safely in the least restrictive setting of their choice, increasing affordable, accessible, residential and community housing options, expanding service options in order to support individuals through all stages of life, and promoting community awareness and understanding.

What it reported doing in 2024

Provide support and services needed to empower indivdiuals with developmental delays, disabilities or other disabling conditions to live their lives with dignity. Increase skills, gain independence, obtain goals and participate in the community.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 85% 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 the filed numbers largely add up. Program spending has declined or grown slowly and revenue has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 73
  • Transparency & Controls: 76
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 31
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 85.6%; rating input score 86
  • Program expense ratio: 75.6%; rating input score 76
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • 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: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • 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: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -6.8%; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.7; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.15; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 1.9%; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -1.6% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -2.5% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 2.2% per year; rating input score 100; 21st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 85.6% of revenue deployed · 75.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $6.9M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $175K · 7 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $823K reported
  • Consistency: 28 of 29 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 17/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 26/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Form 990 shared with the board not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D land buildings reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 51/100.