Utility Emergency Services Fund

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
232227461
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2023
Forms available
Form 990 2023
Location
Philadelphia, PA, USA
Phone
2159725170
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Housing Expense Reduction Support

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$6,670,038
Expenses
$6,427,493
Assets
$3,365,262
Liabilities
$3,518,297

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

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • John Rowe (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • John Rowe (Executive Director): $169,366 total reported compensation
  • Virigina Sims-Riley (Director Of Operations & Finance): $115,228 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To provide housing stabilization to individuals and families in crisis by providing utility assistance and other housing stabilization programs.

What it reported doing in 2023

Front Door programs which consist of the following: Utility Settlement Program-UESF provides financial assistance to low-income individuals and families who are facing utility terminations or who have had their utilities shut off. UESF provides assistance for PECO, Philadelphia Gas Works (PGW) and Philadelphia Water Département (PWD) applicants up to $1,500 per applicant through various grants including The Department of Housing and Urban Development, The Office of Homeless Services and Philadelphia Works, PECO, PGW, and PWD provide contributions to UESF to provide support to UESF to Provide support to UESF to run the program. Water Conservation Housing Stabilization Program Low-income families with high water usages and high bills often get behind on their bills and face having their water turned off. UESF helps water customers facing these problems.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 82% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 59% for direct work, and 41% for 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 expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 80
  • Transparency & Controls: 68
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 35
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 88.4%; rating input score 88
  • Program expense ratio: 91.7%; rating input score 92
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 16th 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: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Limited
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 3.6%; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.52; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 1.05; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.4%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 15.4% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 12.9% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 13.2% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 88.4% of revenue deployed · 91.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $5.9M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $169K · 7 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 25 of 26 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2011 to 2023
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 48/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 18/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 4/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.