Tri-county Society for Children and Adults Inc D/b/a Keystone Partnership

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
231405636
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Harrisburg, PA, USA
Phone
7177327509
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,825,835
Expenses
$2,703,208
Assets
$13,790,778
Liabilities
$463,685

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

Leadership & pay

27 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CHARLES S SWEEDER (PRESIDENT, KHS)
  • KRISTOPHER WEAVER (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER)

Highest reported compensation

  • CHARLES S SWEEDER (PRESIDENT, KHS): $692,221 total reported compensation
  • KRISTOPHER WEAVER (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER): $298,578 total reported compensation
  • KRISTINE C SAYLOR (VP FINANCE, KHS): $262,834 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Tri-county society for children and adults, inc. Dba keystone partnership (kp) provides charitable support for the work of keystone human services (khs) through fundraising, special events, and donations.

What it reported doing in 2024

Keystone partnership (kp) supports all of the subsidiary companies of khs, all 501 (c)(3) corporations by soliciting funds and in-kind donations to meet the needs of each company, recruiting volunteers to support events and providing activities to benefit the work of the companies. Events are held to support both khs affiliates collectively as well as for specific programs within khs.kp also takes the lead in creating community awareness through the development of materials sharing the story of the work of khs. These materials included press releases, editorials, and videos. Kp participates in community activities, attends exhibits for related organizations and makes presentations to clubs and organizations. Kp is a member of many community benefit organizations such as chambers of commerce serving varied populations, civic organizations and allied groups. Kp representatives participated on committees and held leadership positions to increase the awareness of khs and generate interest in khs work. These venues are excellent sources for recruitment of volunteers and program support possibilities.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 65% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Affiliate network. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending through affiliated organizations.

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 fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 72
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 88
  • Sustainability: 65
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 76.4%; rating input score 76
  • Program expense ratio: 78.1%; rating input score 78
  • Fundraising efficiency: $8.69 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: 95.8%; rating input score 96; 26th 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: 4.3%; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 5.1; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 2.9%; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 16.5% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 11.4% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 9.2% per year; rating input score 100; 55th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 76.4% of revenue deployed · 78.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 23 of 24 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $692K · 27 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 28 of 28 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Related organizations: 5 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.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 33/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 49/100.