Greater Valley Forge Transportation Management Association

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
232606401
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
King of Prussia, PA, USA
Phone
6103548899
Rating
66
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,274,960
Expenses
$1,284,275
Assets
$480,578
Liabilities
$138,772

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

Leadership & pay

17 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JEFF GUZY (PRESIDENT)
  • ROBERT HART (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • MAUREEN FARRELL (DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • ROBERT HENRY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • ROBERT HENRY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $204,386 total reported compensation
  • MAUREEN FARRELL (DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $151,889 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Gvf offers a forum in which the local business community and municipal, county and state officials can cooperatively address and seek a resolution to traffic related problems affecting the greater valley forge area.

What it reported doing in 2024

Gvf works as a transporation management association to promote alternatives to commuting such as carpooling, vanpooling, cycling, public transit and walking. Gvf works with local governments to help them address their congestion issues and works with them to give their residents a better quality of life. Gvf also works with the private sector to assist them with mobility alternatives for their employees. In addition, gvf acts as a public information facilitator for penndot to the residents, employers and employees of montgomery and chester counties. Gvf manages shuttle services for local government, businesses and universities. Gvf manages the services so that employees, students and residents of these entities can have an alternative to driving alone. These shuttles improve air quality and offer the riders an option to driving alone which helps to also reduce congestion.

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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 72
  • Transparency & Controls: 60
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 25
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 80.6%; rating input score 81
  • Program expense ratio: 80%; rating input score 80
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: 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: 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: -0.7%; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.37; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.29; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 27.7%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -10.3% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -6.5% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -7.3% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 80.6% of revenue deployed · 80% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 14 of 14 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $204K · 17 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $478K reported
  • Consistency: 25 of 25 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 33/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 18/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 8/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 25/100.