North Penn Valley Boys and Girls Club Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
237164617
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Lansdale, PA, USA
Phone
2158557791
Rating
80
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Boys and Girls Clubs

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,460,982
Expenses
$2,397,068
Assets
$16,090,352
Liabilities
$169,223

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ROBERT KREAMER (CEO)
  • KELLY CURTIS (ASSISTANT CEO)
  • ROBERT CAPPS (PRESIDENT)
  • JAMES CRISFIELD (VICE-PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • ROBERT KREAMER (CEO): $171,493 total reported compensation
  • KELLY CURTIS (ASSISTANT CEO): $88,942 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To inspire and enable all young people, especially those who need us most, to realize their fullest potential as productive, caring, responsible citizens.

What it reported doing in 2025

Project learn is our free, formalized homework assistance program offered to 261 low-income students each day after school from september through june. The program is administered in classrooms at our (3) main clubhouses in lansdale, souderton, and ambler. Three school districts- north penn, souderton, and wissahickon-partner with us on project learn. The districts identify, select, and transport students to us daily as well as share critical information to help us assist each student that includes report card grades and reading benchmark scores. Project learn has been awarded the Pennsylvania statewide youth development award. All students will be low-income and received free or reduced-cost lunch.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 78% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 98% 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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

STRONG - 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 fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 78
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 54
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 81.9%; rating input score 82
  • Program expense ratio: 82.3%; rating input score 82
  • Fundraising efficiency: $14.28 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings

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: 100%; rating input score 100; 75th 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: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 2.6%; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 6.71; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 10.9%; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 1.3% per year; rating input score 100; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5.7% per year; rating input score 100; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 14.8% per year; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 81.9% of revenue deployed · 82.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 14 of 14 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $171K · 16 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 32 of 33 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 48/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 35/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 31/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.