Women's Center of Montgomery County

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
232000206
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Colmar, PA, USA
Phone
2156357340
Rating
81
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Womens' Centers

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,301,728
Expenses
$1,630,732
Assets
$2,284,267
Liabilities
$382,120

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MARIA MACALUSO (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • KATHY SCHLESINGER (PRESIDENT)
  • BETSY ROBINSON (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • MARIA MACALUSO (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $109,781 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The women's center of montgomery county is a volunteer, community organization with a primary focus on freedom from domestic violence and other forms of abuse. Our programs, policies and procedures reflect our strong commitment to empowering women.

What it reported doing in 2024

Legal advocacy and court accompaniment: during this period includes 3,125 court accompaniment sessions broken down as: 46 emergency/after-hours pfa accompaniments 489 temporary pfa filings 2,300 final orders 202 criminal and icc hearings 88 defiant trespass assists.our legal advocacy and options counseling includes onsite assistance at the courthouse with completing the pfa petition. Additionally, as part of these services, we have been designated by our court administration as a resource to pfa petitioners to provide pre-court orientation for them in preparation for their hearing. Each week, our counselors receive a list of upcoming pfa hearings and are charged with contacting those individuals not represented by legal counsel to confirm their hearing dates, provide information about the hearing process and reassurance about the opportunity to be accompanied by our legal advocates at the hearing. Safety planning and additional support resources are also discussed. To address challenges faced by survivors seeking an after-hours pfa, our legal services coordinator revised our after hours/emergency pfa process and information form, directing advocates to take a more active role in assisting hotline callers in need of support as they navigate the challenges and complexities of the after-hours process. The outcomes we seek include: survivors are empowered to advocate and pursue access to justice; ongoing cooperation with attorneys, the court and law enforcement creates stronger partnerships and more effective collaborations.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 77% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
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

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

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 65
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 65
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 58.4%; rating input score 58
  • Program expense ratio: 82.3%; rating input score 82
  • Fundraising efficiency: $15.75 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 29.2%; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.4; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.17; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 6.7%; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 6.8% per year; rating input score 100; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5.7% per year; rating input score 100; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 12.4% per year; rating input score 100; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 58.4% of revenue deployed · 82.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $1.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $110K · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 30 of 30 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 58/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 52/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: CEO compensation review process not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 49/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 43/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 48/100.