Girls on the Run of Greater Susquehanna Valley

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
464149210
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2017
Forms available
Form 990 2017
Location
Williamsport, PA, USA
Phone
5703379865
Rating
67
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$139,754
Expenses
$156,613
Assets
$32,552
Liabilities
$12,942

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Shannon Butters (Executive Director/5K director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Shannon Butters (Executive Director/5K director): $40,000 total reported compensation
  • Jill Girio (Program Coodinator): $23,400 total reported compensation
  • Melissa Jackson (5K Director): $6,000 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To inspire girls to be joyful, healthy and confident using a fun, experience-based curriculum which creatively integrates running.

What it reported doing in 2017

The ten week with two days a week meeting is the schedule implemented for the program that runs each time for at least one and a half hours for an average of 20 girls per school. Per ten girls there are two volunteer coaches. These coaches either must provide clearances or the clearances are retrieved for them at a cost to us. The program has materials such as a binder for each coach on the lessons and a bag full of various items ranging from markers and nail polish to a ball and cones. All girls in the program receive a healthy snack at each meeting. Each participant in the program receives a shirt. The girls who need shoes are given shoes at our expense. Thank you notes are printed and given to not only the corporate sponsors, but also to the volunteer coaches. A thank you bag is given to coaches for their donated time and energy. Due to the low income areas we service 32% of revenue goes back into the system as scholarship for our girls who need this program the most. The culmination of the program is in the 5K. This large scale production is carried out by volunteers.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The program-spending lines do not add up, so the filing cannot show reliably whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 63
  • Transparency & Controls: 81
  • Accountability: 63
  • Sustainability: 15
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 61.9%; rating input score 62
  • Program expense ratio: 53.8%; rating input score 54
  • Fundraising efficiency: $278.07 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90%; rating input score 90; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 1 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 11
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -12.1%; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.21; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.4; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 47.8%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 37.5% per year; rating input score 100; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 52.3% per year; rating input score 100; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -25.2% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 61.9% of revenue deployed · 53.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 1 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $84K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $40K · 12 people listed
  • Consistency: 23 of 24 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2015 to 2017
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 7 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 54/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 19/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 12/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 4/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 17/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.