African American Planning Commission, Inc.
Legal name: African American Planning Commission Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 113305070
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Brooklyn, NY, US
- Phone
- (718) 635-4235
- Rating
- 86
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Human Service Organizations
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $72,419,889
- Expenses
- $73,556,770
- Assets
- $34,905,247
- Liabilities
- $33,690,240
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
15 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- MATTHEW OKEBIYI (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER)
Highest reported compensation
- MATTHEW OKEBIYI (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER): $599,136 total reported compensation
- RODNEY A MARSHALL (CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER): $238,455 total reported compensation
- TASHIMA TAYLOR (CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER): $227,691 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 develop and maintain safe, secure, and affordable housing and supportive services for vulnerable New Yorkers, including homeless individuals, families fleeing domestic violence, seniors, and low-income communities.
What it reported doing in 2024
African american planning commission, inc. Operates transitional homeless shelters as well as supportive housing for families, and individuals referred by the city of New York human resources administration, the New York city department of homeless services and the New York city department of health and mental hygiene. Residents are provided with counseling services to help them obtain housing, employment, and financial assistance.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Grant-funded. 100% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 56% for direct work, and 44% for grants.
The verdict
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 85
- Transparency & Controls: 85
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 21
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 95.5%; rating input score 96
- Program expense ratio: 94.1%; rating input score 94
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 25th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Pass
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- 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: -1.6%; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.47; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.97; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 2.5%; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 21% per year; rating input score 100; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 21.1% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 14.3% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 4 programs and campaigns described on the official site
- Where the money goes: 95.5% of revenue deployed · 94.1% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $69.2M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $599K · 15 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $9.6M reported
- Consistency: 34 of 35 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 13 filing years from 2010 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 8 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.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 20/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 17/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 8/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 45/100.