Howell Township Police Athletic League

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
222234983
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2007
Location
Howell, NJ, USA
Phone
7329192825
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$4,514,106
Expenses
$5,051,319
Assets
$1,349,225
Liabilities
$418,037

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

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SGT CHRISTOPHER HILL (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • JOHN STEVENS (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • SGT CHRISTOPHER HILL (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $198,938 total reported compensation
  • HOWARD DUNBAR (CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER): $129,431 total reported compensation
  • STEVEN MARCINKIEWICZ (CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER): $62,719 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Howell township police athletic league is a non-profit corporation with the purpose of crime prevention by providing youth leadership, athletic, educational and enrichment programs for elementary school, middle school and high school students as well as adults. A pre school program is also offered.

What it reported doing in 2024

School programs - before and after care programs, middle school sports and activity programs, elementary school activity programs, and pre-school programs.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 93% 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. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 83
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 77
  • Sustainability: 16
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 94.8%; rating input score 95
  • Program expense ratio: 84.7%; rating input score 85
  • Fundraising efficiency: $4.5 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 13th 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: 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: 4 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 44
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -11.9%; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.27; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.31; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 8.5%; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 7.1% per year; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.4% per year; rating input score 100; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 18.9% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 94.8% of revenue deployed · 84.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 4 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $4.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $199K · 6 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 25 of 27 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2015 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 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.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 15/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 11/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 8/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D expense reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 33/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 35/100.