Lancaster County Health & Welfare Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
232120054
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2016
Forms available
Form 990 2016
Location
Lancaster, PA, USA
Phone
7173940731
Rating
88
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Federated Giving Programs

Reported finances

Revenue
$460,960
Expenses
$467,377
Assets
$2,109,584
Liabilities
$351,079

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Maureen Maley (PRESIDENT)
  • STEVE DENLINGER (VICE PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • Maureen Maley (PRESIDENT)
  • STEVE DENLINGER (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • Scooter Haase (SECRETARY)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

THE FOUNDATION Maintains and operates facilities which are leased to various non-profit community service agencies in Lancaster County at below market rates.

What it reported doing in 2016

During the current fiscal year, the Lancaster County Health and Welfare Foundation supplied leased office space to nine not-for-profits and one government agency. These agencies include The ARC of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania Dutch Council - Boy Scouts of America, Pressley Ridge, Compass Mark, Mental Health America of Lancaster County, United Way of Lancaster County, Keystone Pet Enhanced Therapy, Girl Scouts of America, Lancaster AASCO, and Lancaster County Behavioral Health and Developmental Services. Each of these agencies serves the needs of Lancaster County residents through either direct services or through the funding of social and health and human service programs. The Foundation has managed to maintain below market lease rates during a period of declining charitable contributions and government funding. These rates have permitted the agencies in the building to have a higher proportion of funds available for social service programs than would otherwise be the case if the agencies paid market lease rates. Other cost savings were achieved through the use of common conference rooms and other common spaces.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 100% 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

STRONG - 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 expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 89
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 88
  • Sustainability: 52
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 99%; rating input score 99
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: 5 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 71
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -1.4%; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.51; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.17; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 1.9% per year; rating input score 100; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 0.7% per year; rating input score 100; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 0.9% per year; rating input score 100; 41st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 99% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $462K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 7 people listed
  • Consistency: 24 of 24 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2009 to 2016
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 37/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 28/100.