Greater Reading Economic Partnership

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
470863420
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2018
Forms available
Form 990 2018
Location
Reading, PA, USA
Phone
6103766766
Rating
64
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Economic Development

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,005,322
Expenses
$1,033,234
Assets
$1,088,657
Liabilities
$57,945

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2018. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

33 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • PAMELA SHUPP (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • PAMELA SHUPP (PRESIDENT): $158,575 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2018. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Greater reading economic partnership's (grep) mission is to lead regional efforts to attract, retain, and grow business and to market berks county as a competitive and attractive location for business.

What it reported doing in 2018

Greater reading economic partnership (grep) program service accomplishments in 2018 included: working with developers that will create over 650 acres and almost 7.5 million square feet of new industrial building development in berks county in next 1 3 years. Worked with more than 110 berks county companies and small businesses to make them aware of the resources available to help them grow and retain jobs in berks county.the impact of our marketing results in over 750 jobs being created and retained in berks county.providing data through greaterreadingsites.com for over 10 million sf and 850 acres available for commercial and industrial investment. Grep successfully positioned berks county/greater reading as a regional partner with easy access to large metro markets. Greater reading is part of the lehigh valley, part of southcentral pa and part of southeast pa and metro philadelphia. And our location identity has paid off. As a regional partner with southeast pa, we leveraged over $65,000 in commonwealth funds to support our local business outreach efforts. Managed the foreign trade zone 147 for berks county; coordinated prospect site visits with economic development partners; identified key common issues our local companies are facing to develop strategies and programs to support them; provided marketing and outreach support for the development of new industrial sites and buildings so berks county will have expanded visibility for available location opportunities; participated with several regional and national economic development organizations including; industrial asset management council, international economic development council, Pennsylvania economic development association, site selector guild, and the world trade center of harrisburg; and met routinely with local legislators, state officials, community, and business leaders to provide updates about economic development in berks county.grep, as the lead marketing organization for business attraction for berks county, continued an aggressive marketing and public relations campaign throughout 2018. Some of grep's major accomplishments included: created original content on greaterreading.org and deployed through various digital platforms; developed a marketing strategy for talent attraction and retention for berks county; created high-quality and customizable collateral materials and prospect information; attended 7 industry tradeshows and conferences to promote greater reading to highly targeted audiences.

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.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. The required major-donor schedule is missing or incomplete and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 55
  • Transparency & Controls: 68
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 42
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 63%; rating input score 63
  • Program expense ratio: 61.2%; rating input score 61
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Pass
    • 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: No; rating input score 0
  • 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: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -2.8%; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.05; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.05; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 1.7%; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -9.8% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -0.2% per year; rating input score 0; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 3.2% per year; rating input score 100; 43rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 63% of revenue deployed · 61.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 32 of 32 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $632K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $159K · 33 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 25 of 25 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2010 to 2018
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Major donor itemization scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 28/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 48/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 58/100.