The Fellowship House of Conshohocken

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
231440114
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2013
Forms available
Form 990 2013
Location
Conshohocken, PA, USA
Phone
6108283266
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Men's Service Clubs

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$437,721
Expenses
$484,895
Assets
$2,933,320
Liabilities
$5,557

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2013. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DARLENE HILDEBRAND (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • THOMAS SHIRLEY (PRESIDENT)
  • ROBERT FROST (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • DARLENE HILDEBRAND (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $54,650 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2013. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To provide recreation and education service opportunities for the citizens of the borough of conshohocken and the surrounding area.

What it reported doing in 2013

During 2013, we saw 44,000 residents use the fellowship house facilities for various programs such as our bocce tournament, holiday gift giving and senior bingo. Additionally we have partnered with other charitable organizations including the epilepsy foundation, the special olympics, the catholic youth organization, and research for childhood brain cancer to increase community awareness and involvement. One of our largest events is the donofrio tournament that runs for four weeks and hosts 26 local basketball teams. Another one of our programs that attracts over 200 children from surrounding communities is our summer program which includes summer camp that runs for six weeks and basketball camp. The summer camp is a structured program of sports, crafts, visits to the museum, sporting events and swimming instruction that runs from june to july. The basketball league is a 7 week program that teaches the basics of the game to both girls and boys ages 6 to 16.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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 most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and revenue has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 80
  • Transparency & Controls: 62
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 46
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 86%; rating input score 86
  • Program expense ratio: 76.5%; rating input score 76
  • Fundraising efficiency: $18.86 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 25th 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: 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: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • 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: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -10.8%; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 6.05; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 11.3%; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: -0.7% per year; rating input score 0; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -1.3% per year; rating input score 0; 36th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 86% of revenue deployed · 76.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $371K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $55K · 14 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 31 of 32 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2011 to 2013
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 20/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Document-retention policy not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 34/100.