The Human Services Alliance of Greater Prince William Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
842869982
IRS 990 coverage
2019–2023
Forms available
Form 990 2023
Location
Manassas, VA, USA
Phone
7033444729
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Human Service Organizations

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,122,466
Expenses
$2,491,065
Assets
$752,710
Liabilities
$1,015,899

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Martina Jackson Green (Executive Director)
  • Margaret Kimmey (Executive Director)
  • William Tyler (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Margaret Kimmey (Executive Director): $47,749 total reported compensation
  • Martina Jackson Green (Executive Director): $15,030 total reported compensation
  • William Tyler (Executive Director): $5,770 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The mission of The Alliance is to be the catalyst for greater partnerships and collaboration among its network of human service organizations, the faith community, other community organizations, and interested citizens to enhance the lives of the people they support.

What it reported doing in 2023

The Alliance partnered with PW County to administer funds for the CARES Community Act and Disaster Relief fund as well as what was raised through community support. These services included selecting non- profits to participate; awarding, disbursing, and tracking the funds to the non-profits; reporting progress with the County

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 100% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 91% of its reported program spending out as grants.

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: 88
  • Transparency & Controls: 64
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 15
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 95.8%; rating input score 96
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 5th 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -17.4%; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.3; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 1.35; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 2.8%; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 28.5% per year; rating input score 100; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 25.4% per year; rating input score 100; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 20.9% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 95.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $2.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $48K · 13 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 26 of 28 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2019 to 2023
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 26 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 23 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 9/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 9/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 3/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.