Providence Plan

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
050467353
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2016
Forms available
Form 990 2016
Location
Providence, RI, USA
Phone
4014558880
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Community, Neighborhood Development

Reported finances

Revenue
$5,389,143
Expenses
$5,675,809
Assets
$407,222
Liabilities
$165,126

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

Leadership & pay

19 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • PATRICK MCGUIGAN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR - UNTIL 9/2016)
  • JAMES BERSON (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR - FROM 9/2016)

Highest reported compensation

  • PATRICK MCGUIGAN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR - UNTIL 9/2016): $172,996 total reported compensation
  • LESLIE GELL TERMINATED 22517 (HIGHLY COMP. EMPLOYEE): $135,211 total reported compensation
  • ANDREW CORTES (HIGHLY COMP. EMPLOYEE - UNTIL 1/2017): $117,508 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The providence plan's mission is to improve the economic and social well-being of providence, its residents, and its neighborhoods. The providence plan also provides data analysis for government agencies and community groups on a variety of issues, such as economic development, public safety, health, jobs, and education. The providence plan also operates programs focused on children's well-being, workforce development, and the capacity of our state's nonprofit sector.

What it reported doing in 2016

Other programs: -youthbuild - provides young people with opportunities for positive life choices and experiences, helping them to become mentally and morally empowered to accept responsibility for themselves, their families and their communities. Youthbuild is supported by americorps national. This program was transferred to youthbuild, a newly formed non-profit, during the year ended 6/30/17.-information group - working on data projects that will be used to inform policy and/or community action in ways that promote the well-being of providence and Rhode Island residents. This program was transferred to the university of Rhode Island during the year ended 6/30/17.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 85% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
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. Program spending has declined or grown slowly and revenue has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 77
  • Transparency & Controls: 84
  • Accountability: 91
  • Sustainability: 15
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 88.9%; rating input score 89
  • Program expense ratio: 84.4%; rating input score 84
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -5.3%; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.07; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.41; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 12.5%; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -7.4% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -1.3% per year; rating input score 0; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 3.9% per year; rating input score 100; 46th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 88.9% of revenue deployed · 84.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $4.8M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $173K · 19 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 29 of 29 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2009 to 2016
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 7 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.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 18/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 2/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 18/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 32/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.