Visioncorps Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
208657297
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2020
Forms available
Form 990 2020
Location
Lancaster, PA, USA
Phone
7173935894
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Blind/Visually Impaired Centers

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,039,042
Expenses
$1,031,464
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DENNIS STEINER (PRESIDENT)
  • MEGAN E TOMSHECK (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • DENNIS STEINER (PRESIDENT): $219,691 total reported compensation
  • MEGAN E TOMSHECK (VICE PRESIDENT): $126,093 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Supporting opportunities that enable greater personal & economic independence for people who are blind or vision impaired.

What it reported doing in 2020

Education and public awareness - visioncorps foundation understands that community education and awareness is critical in maintaining support for its programs. One particular program supported by the foundation served 1,217 unique clients in its many service areas, for a total of 11,015 service hours - this would not have been possible without the support of an aware and actively contributing community. The foundation also supported preventative efforts that screened 7,748 individuals (children and adults) for signs of vision loss. Statistics indicate that the number of people who are blind in the united states will double in the next decade, and the continuation and increase of these services is crucial.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 67% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 84% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of total spending goes to programs and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 70
  • Transparency & Controls: 88
  • Accountability: 80
  • Sustainability: 16
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 90.3%; rating input score 90
  • Program expense ratio: 58.6%; rating input score 59
  • Fundraising efficiency: $2.21 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.4%; rating input score 94; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 5 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 83
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Pass
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 98.4%; rating input score 98; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 83.3%; rating input score 83; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 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: 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: 0.7%; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 15.3%; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 11.7% per year; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -3.7% per year; rating input score 0; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 1.3% per year; rating input score 100; 27th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 90.3% of revenue deployed · 58.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 6 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $605K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $220K · 7 people listed · 5 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 32 of 33 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2013 to 2020
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 2 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 59/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 4/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 29/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 24/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.