Rural Regional College of Northern Pennsylvania

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
473530185
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Warren, PA, USA
Phone
8142309010
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Community or Junior Colleges

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$10,890,462
Expenses
$10,133,256
Assets
$17,392,407
Liabilities
$11,373,875

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

Leadership & pay

22 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SUSAN SNELICK (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • SUSAN SNELICK (PRESIDENT): $199,525 total reported compensation
  • JENNIFER CUMMINGS-TUTMAHER (VP STUDENT SERVICES): $157,924 total reported compensation
  • MICHAEL GIAMBRONE (VP OF FINANCE AND OPERATIONS): $144,026 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Northern Pennsylvania regional college puts learners first by providing affordable and accessible education and career pathways to sustainable income.

What it reported doing in 2024

The college offers courses in both academic and workforce development programs and enrollments continue to increase in both areas. Currently associates degrees are offered in a.a. General studies, a.a. Human services, a.s. Business administration, a.a.s. Business management, a.s. Criminal justice, a.a.s. Industrial technology, a.a. Education studies and a.a.s. Early childhood education. Workforce programming continues to fulfill community and employer needs. The college received accreditation from msche in march 2026.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 86% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 99% 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 the organization raises money at a relatively low cost. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 60
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 51
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 54.5%; rating input score 54
  • Program expense ratio: 58.3%; rating input score 58
  • Fundraising efficiency: $401.86 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Pass
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 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: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 7%; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.72; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.65; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 7.4%; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 23.2% per year; rating input score 100; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 20.5% per year; rating input score 100; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 30.5% per year; rating input score 100; 96th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 54.5% of revenue deployed · 58.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 14 of 14 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $5.9M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $200K · 22 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $1.7M reported
  • Consistency: 34 of 34 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2016 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.

Key Signals

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

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 54/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 58/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 56/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 20/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 33/100.