The Hillside School

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
232263178
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Macungie, PA, USA
Phone
6109675449
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,004,350
Expenses
$2,759,792
Assets
$7,262,623
Liabilities
$504,156

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

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MR STUART ROGERS (PRESIDENT)
  • MR RYAN OESTREICH (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • MR JASON SEGGERN (HEAD OF SCHOOL): $189,135 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

See schedule o

What it reported doing in 2024

Education of elementary and middle school age children with learning disabilitiesthe purpose and philosophy of this school shall be to provide superior educational instruction to k-8th grade school children so as to assist each student in managing learning disabilities in an atmosphere which not only emphasizes knowledge and the skills of learning but also makes available the specialized diagnostic skills of educational specialists to design, implement, and evaluate individualized curricula so as to promote the greatest educational development of its students.the goals of the hillside school include developing eager resilient learners equipped with strategies, self -confidence and advocacy skills to succeed in traditional learning environments. To help families of our children to understand the problems and challenges of learning differently and to become part of the solution. To act as a training center for teachers from public and independent schools to more effectively serve children with learning disabilities in their classrooms. To assist colleges and universities to expand and enhance the application of learning theories for students majoring in education, psychology and social work. To serve as a national model for other schools that serve children with learning disabilities. To educate and develop community awareness of the needs of children and adults with learning disabilities. And to assist families with financing a hillside education through scholarships.

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 79% for direct work, and 21% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and revenue has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 76
  • Transparency & Controls: 75
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 61
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 82.7%; rating input score 83
  • Program expense ratio: 81%; rating input score 81
  • Fundraising efficiency: $7.82 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • 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: 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: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: 8.1%; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.63; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.07; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 6.9%; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 1.3% per year; rating input score 100; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -0% per year; rating input score 0; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -0.5% per year; rating input score 0; 11th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 82.7% of revenue deployed · 81% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $189K · 14 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 36 of 36 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2012 to 2024
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 30/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 59/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 42/100.