Selinsgrove Area Community Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
232775624
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2016
Forms available
Form 990 2016
Location
Berwick, PA, USA
Phone
5707523930
Rating
82
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Community, Neighborhood Development

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$228,199
Expenses
$113,220
Assets
$1,098,799
Liabilities
$32,201

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • HEATHER H ROWE (PRESIDENT)
  • MICHAEL F FLOCK (VICE PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • HEATHER H ROWE (PRESIDENT)
  • MICHAEL F FLOCK (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • MARVIN J RUDNITSKY (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 selinsgrove area community foundation is dedicated to the enrichment of the quality of life in the selinsgrove area and surrounding communities through superior stewardship of enduring charitable gifts. It exists to assist and encourage donors of all levels to achieve their diverse philanthropic interests while providing a legacy that will serve the communities for present and future generations.

What it reported doing in 2016

The selinsgrove area community foundation (sacf) has been giving grants and scholarships to benefit snyder county's residents for over 20 years. It began in 1994 as a community endowment by the selinsgrove rotary club to establish scholarships for local students. It has since become a wide-reaching source of funds for selinsgrove and the surrounding communities. Sacf is governed by an 12-member volunteer board. In june 2006, the selinsgrove area community foundation, then selinsgrove area youth foundation, joined central susquehanna community foundation (cscf) as an affiliate. Cscf provides investment, administrative, and program support for sacf, which depends solely on its volunteers and has no staff or administrative structure. Sacf maintains its incorporation and control of its grantmaking decisions. In 2016, the community foundation awarded scholarships to high school seniors and grants to local non-profit organizations from its own endowed funds. Funds were also raised through the foundation's golf tournaments.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 43% for direct work, and 57% for grants.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of total spending goes to programs and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 70
  • Transparency & Controls: 87
  • Accountability: 94
  • Sustainability: 85
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 57.8%; rating input score 58
  • Program expense ratio: 87.8%; rating input score 88
  • Fundraising efficiency: $48.18 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 90.2%; rating input score 90; 49th 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: 6 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 86
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • 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: 50.4%; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 9.7; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 26.9% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.9% per year; rating input score 100; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 10.1% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 57.8% of revenue deployed · 87.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 6 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $99K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 12 people listed
  • Consistency: 22 of 23 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2012 to 2016
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 2 filed related-organization links
  • 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 58/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 47/100.