Supportive Concepts for Families

Legal name: Supportive Concepts for Families Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
232713290
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
Location
Reading, PA, US
Phone
(888) 686-7233
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Developmentally Disabled Centers

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$116,709,720
Expenses
$103,472,470
Assets
$97,178,637
Liabilities
$24,611,835

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

Leadership & pay

22 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Cynthia Pachuta (President)
  • Eugene J Settembrino (CEO until 2/21/25)
  • Rick Smith (Chief Executive Officer)
  • Guy Legare (Executive Director of PDCS)
  • Stephanie S Pineiro (CAO, Interim CEO, Chief of Staff)

Highest reported compensation

  • Ryan D Smith (Director): $1,489,010 total reported compensation
  • Michael Herr (Treasurer): $915,607 total reported compensation
  • George Contos (SEVP & Senior Advisor): $677,247 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Supportive Concepts for Families, Inc. is a provider of high quality services and supports for individuals with Behavioral Health Needs and/or Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities.

What it reported doing in 2024

Residential Habilitation Services for intellectually and developmentally disabled individuals are provided in a 24 hour per day, community home setting. The individuals, in conjunction with their families, advocates and county support coordinators, meet with agency programming and nursing staff to discuss available program sites that would best accommodate the individual's needs. areas for discussion and planning include physical site location and modifications to the home, staff supervision requirements, physical and behavioral health needs, and suitable housemates. Residential Habilitation Services are provided to protect the health and welfare of individuals who reside at the residential setting by assisting them in acquiring, retaining and improving self-help, socialization and adaptive skills necessary to reside successfully in the community. Examples of general support service areas may include the following: self-care; communication; fine and gross motor skills; mobility; therapeutic activities; personal adjustment; relationship development; socialization; and use of community resources. Individuals and their families are offered the opportunity to be introduced to and spend time with both prospective roommates, as well as the staff members responsible for their support, and are encouraged to offer feedback for continual program enhancement. Supportive Concepts For Families, Inc. stresses the utilization of person-directed services, client choice approach, throughout all services offered. Supportive Concepts For Families, Inc. makes arrangements for any and all services the individual may require on a daily basis and as authorized by the referral source. Family members may have as much or as little involvement in these services as they choose. As the provider, Supportive Concepts For Families, Inc. is responsible for all needs of the individual twenty-four (24) hours a day, seven days a week. Supportive Concepts For Families, Inc. strives to ensure that each individual becomes an active member of the community in which they reside and supports individuals receiving care in the pursuit of their recreational, vocational, social, educational, and religious interests. Nursing oversight and intervention is included in this comprehensive service model.

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 the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 68
  • Transparency & Controls: 67
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 62
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 73.1%; rating input score 73
  • Program expense ratio: 82.4%; rating input score 82
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 68th 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: Yes; rating input score 100

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 88.9%; rating input score 89; 36th 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: 11.3%; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.94; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.25; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 1.4%; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 7.6% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 9.4% per year; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 20% per year; rating input score 100; 93rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 6 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 73.1% of revenue deployed · 82.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 9 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $85.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $1.5M · 22 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 24 of 24 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes executive pay and related organizations
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 6 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 32 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 37/100.