Mel Blount Youth Leadership Initiative
Legal name: Mel Blount Youth Home of Pa Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 251585859
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2019–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Claysville, PA, US
- Phone
- +1 724-948-2311
- Rating
- 62
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Standard
- Sector
- Residential Care & Adult Day Programs
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $1,555,761
- Expenses
- $1,502,362
- Assets
- $3,665,165
- Liabilities
- $841,747
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
6 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- MELVIN BLOUNT (CEO)
Highest reported compensation
- TIANDA BLOUNT (EXEC VP): $60,000 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The mission of the Mel Blount Youth Leadership Initiative is to provide youth with programs where they will have a healthy environment to learn, work, play and to develop principles of respect, responsibility, and leadership through: nurturing, moral & character development and guidance.
What it reported doing in 2024
Highmark health high 5 (hhh5): the hhh5 program is centered around a low ropes course and a quarter mile fitness trail. The goal is to take a group of participants and unify them so that with teamwork the group will be able to succeed and move through the physical challenges of each course. As the group members work together, they develop trust, caring, decisiveness, determination, cooperation and become spiritually, physically and mentally stronger.
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 95% 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. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 45
- Transparency & Controls: 66
- Accountability: 84
- Sustainability: 52
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 49.4%; rating input score 49
- Program expense ratio: 51.2%; rating input score 51
- Fundraising efficiency: $2.69 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 81.2%; rating input score 81; 1st percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 13.9%; rating input score 14; 26th percentile among comparable filings
- 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: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Other executive compensation review process: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 3.4%; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.44; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.23; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 4%; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 7.1% per year; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 24% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 28.9% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 9 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 3 operating locations identified
- Where the money goes: 49.4% of revenue deployed · 51.2% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $769K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $60K · 6 people listed
- Consistency: 28 of 31 current checks pass · 3 findings to review
- Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
- Filing history: 5 filing years from 2019 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 2 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.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 49/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 14/100.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 51/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 8/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 46/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule G fundraiser detail did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 29/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 55/100.