Urban Impact Foundation
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 251752269
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2009–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Pittsburgh, PA, USA
- Phone
- 4123213811
- Rating
- 75
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Human Service Organizations
- Affiliation
- Christianity
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $13,767,093
- Expenses
- $7,435,622
- Assets
- $18,520,946
- Liabilities
- $1,087,294
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
10 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- REV EDWARD GLOVER (PRESIDENT/DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- REV EDWARD GLOVER (PRESIDENT/DIRECTOR): $96,404 total reported compensation
- SARA GLOVER (CHIEF OPERATIONS OFFICER): $76,908 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To conduct various programs intended to transform inner city "at risk" youth on the north side of pittsburgh into successful, contributing and functionable members of society.
What it reported doing in 2024
Education and summer youth camp programs - summer internships, an eight week summer day camp for children in grades 1-8, and other summer programs. Typically there are between 190 and 250 participants in summer day camp including high school interns from the community. The goal, which has been consistently maintained over the years is for 90% or more students to maintain or improve their reading and math proficiency measured via assessments at the beginning and end of camp. There are typically 45 or more interns in addition to permanent staff that work with the students. A wide range of activities include field trips, camping, healthcare screening, vision screening, guest speakers, and a variety of physical activities. This was in addition to the academic refreshment for literature and math. In addition, urban impact offers other academic services to the community including weekly tutoring after school, in school literacy support, and in school math support. The in school services are performed by urban impact staff and volunteers working under the direction of the teachers and principals to help 324 needy students and provide one on one tutoring and help to the classrooms. This is offered at over 5 pittsburgh public schools located on the north side.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 73% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- 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.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 53
- Transparency & Controls: 92
- Accountability: 84
- Sustainability: 82
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 40.9%; rating input score 41
- Program expense ratio: 70.3%; rating input score 70
- Fundraising efficiency: $20.66 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: Limited
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 80%; rating input score 80; 16th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- 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: 46%; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.49; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.06; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 2.3%; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 8.9% per year; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 13.9% per year; rating input score 100; 85th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 22.9% per year; rating input score 100; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 40.9% of revenue deployed · 70.3% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 8 of 10 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 8 filed program accomplishments · $5.2M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $96K · 10 people listed
- Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $153K reported
- Consistency: 24 of 24 current checks pass
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors
- Filing history: 14 filing years from 2009 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
- 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: Mission deployment rate scored 41/100.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 58/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.