Youth Advocate Programs (YAP), Inc.

Legal name: Youth Advocate Programs Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
231977514
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Harrisburg, PA, US
Phone
(717)232-7580
Rating
83
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Children's, Youth Services

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$104,653,773
Expenses
$105,675,211
Assets
$59,448,318
Liabilities
$28,739,173

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

Leadership & pay

28 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • GARY IVORY (PRESIDENT AND CEO)
  • JEFF FLEISCHER (FORMER CEO (UNTIL 8/22))

Highest reported compensation

  • GARY IVORY (PRESIDENT AND CEO): $314,059 total reported compensation
  • JEFF FLEISCHER (FORMER CEO (UNTIL 8/22)): $211,321 total reported compensation
  • KELLY WILLIAMS (CHIEF OF MARKETING/COMM OFFICER): $192,104 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 provide community-based alternatives to incarceration and institutional placement for youth and families, using wraparound services and advocacy to reduce recidivism and strengthen communities.

What it reported doing in 2024

The purpose of youth advocate programs, inc. Is to provide humane community-based alternative programs for the care and protection of individuals who are, have been, or may be subject to compulsory care, supervision, treatment, and/or incarceration in public or private institutions.the objectives of youth advocate programs, inc. Are to provide to social and judiciary agencies a cost-effective alternative to residential care as well as an aftercare service to those who are returning to the community. To fulfill this objective, two non-residential programs are offered. They are the community advocate program and the supported work program.the client population served by the program is primarily children, youth, and their parents. However, the program also accepts referrals of adult clients who are in need of in-home support services in order to live independently and remain in community placements. Youth advocate programs, inc. Accepts clients who are experiencing abuse, neglect, delinquency, mental illness, developmental disabilities, mental retardation, and substance abuse.in order to enhance the delivery of mental and behavioral health services to children and the community, youth advocate programs, inc. Has applied for and received licenses to provide services in the states of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Arizona, South Carolina and Texas. Youth advocate programs, inc. Provides behavioral health rehabilitation services to children and youth in these states pursuant to state and county contracts or pursuant to title ix of the social security act ("medicaid"). These services are provided consistent with youth advocate programs, inc.'s articles of incorporation to provide community based alternative programs for the care and protection of children who may be subject to institutionalization or require community and/or family based support programs.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 94% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 82
  • Transparency & Controls: 78
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 28
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 82.4%; rating input score 82
  • Program expense ratio: 82%; rating input score 82
  • Fundraising efficiency: $80.37 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 5 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 83
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Pass
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Pass
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 77th 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; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -1%; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.56; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.48; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 1.9%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 4.7% per year; rating input score 100; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.7% per year; rating input score 100; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 10.4% per year; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 3 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 82.4% of revenue deployed · 82% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 16 of 16 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $86.6M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $314K · 28 people listed · 5 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $4.7M reported
  • Consistency: 40 of 41 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 11 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: Foreign activity oversight: 6 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 22/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 21/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 37/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 58/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.