St John's Community Services- Pennsylvania

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
522198798
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Philadelphia, PA, USA
Phone
2022376500
Rating
62
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Elementary, Secondary Education, K - 12

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$13,515,591
Expenses
$11,147,330
Assets
$1,442,867
Liabilities
$391,800

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

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • GORDON A THORNTON (PRESIDENT & CEO)
  • GEORGE LIACOPOULOS (DEPUTY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER)

Highest reported compensation

  • GORDON A THORNTON (PRESIDENT & CEO): $460,377 total reported compensation
  • GEORGE LIACOPOULOS (DEPUTY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER): $309,696 total reported compensation
  • SHERRIE HARRISON-RUMBLE (DIRECTOR OF FINANCE (UNTIL 7/28/25)): $250,635 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

St. John's community services-Pennsylvania's mission is to advance inclusive communities where every person, regardless of circumstances, has the right and opportunity to live their best life.

What it reported doing in 2024

St. John's community services - Pennsylvania is a subsidiary corporation of st. John's community services. The parent corporation is separately incorporated in the district of columbia and governed by a volunteer board of trustees. Each of the subsidiaries, including sjcs-pa, is supported by local leadership. While sjcs-pa is incorporated in Pennsylvania, services are provided in Delaware, where an administrative office is also located. Direct services are no longer provided in Pennsylvania. Sjcs-pa contracts to use the copyrighted name "st. John's community services and acquires various administrative support services from the parent corporation. As a condition of the contract, the parent corporation establishes and monitors service quality standards and the subsidiary accept these service standards as best practice.the administrative support services and technical assistance that the parent corporation provides include accounting, cash management, strategic planning, communication and information dissemination, human resources, information technology, quality assurance, corporate compliance and program development. Each of these support services is individually tailored to meet the unique needs of this subsidiary corporation and its distinctive cultural as well as financial status. These services assist sjcs-pa to meet the requirements of the contracts, laws and regulations under which it operates. Sjcs-pa operates under its own operating policies and procedures and local leadership. Administrative support services are provided by the parent corporation, st. John's community services, to the subsidiary corporation, sjcs-pa, at a low fixed rate consistent with national standards.to further the agency's mission of advancing inclusive communities, the parent corporation sets quality standards consistent with the mission that must be met by the sjcs-pa subsidiary in the provision of services. Those services must foster inclusion, self-direction, economic self-sufficiency, relationship development and choice. Meeting and maintaining these standards is a requirement for the continuation of the administrative support contract and use of the corporate name. The parent corporation also provides technical assistance and training for the sjcs-pa subsidiary corporation to facilitate the attainment of these established standards. People receiving services through the st. John's subsidiary must meet local funding sources and the subsidiary's unique eligibility requirements for each specific service.types of community supports and opportunities for people living with disabilities that sjcs-pa provides in Delaware are community living services. This is housing and staff support provided to people with disabilities so they may live as independently as possible in homes in the community, and actively engage in home and community activities that are meaningful to them.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 100% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
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 program spending has grown recently. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 79
  • Transparency & Controls: 55
  • Accountability: 32
  • Sustainability: 54
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 82.5%; rating input score 82
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 6th 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: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: No; rating input score 0

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 3rd 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: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 17.5%; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.13; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.27; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 1.1%; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 27.7% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 22.4% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 14.1% per year; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 82.5% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 3 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $11.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $460K · 4 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 25 of 26 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Related organizations: 7 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.

  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Related-party transparency scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 3/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 49/100.