Al Sigl Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
161544847
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
Location
Rochester, NY, USA
Phone
5854424100
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Named Trusts N.E.C.

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,301,580
Expenses
$2,211,413
Assets
$36,089,547
Liabilities
$1,190,103

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

Leadership & pay

28 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • THOMAS O'CONNOR (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • THOMAS O'CONNOR (PRESIDENT): $252,841 total reported compensation
  • STACEY WALLENHORST (VP & CFO): $165,915 total reported compensation
  • BRENDA GEGLIA (FOUNDATION VP): $143,861 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 al sigl foundation raises, manages and distributes funds to foster the goals of the al sigl community of agencies, its collaborative member agencies, and the tens of thousands of children and adults with disabilities and special needs who are served by those agencies.

What it reported doing in 2024

The sports committee capped off a successful 2024, proudly distributing $96,000 in unrestricted funds to al sigl member agencies thanks to a year of impactful fundraising efforts. We kicked things off by hosting a lift for abilities, our ski benefit raising a net $7,041. The 55th annual sports classic golf tournament welcomed more than 140 golfers accross morning and afternoon rounds, generating a net total of $61,026. The tennis benefit continued its tradition of excellence, drawing 72 players for saturday's sell-out team tournament and 24 more for our friday evening social round robin. This two-day celebration raised $27,934. The 20th anniversary of fine tastings brought together guests for an evening of sipping and sampling from local restaurants, wineries, distilleries, and breweries, raising $47,742 to support our mission.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as 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 a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 60
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 98
  • Sustainability: 86
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 72.9%; rating input score 73
  • Program expense ratio: 55.6%; rating input score 56
  • Fundraising efficiency: $1.62 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 95.7%; rating input score 96; 26th 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: 33%; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 16.32; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0.9%; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -6.8% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -5.4% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6.1% per year; rating input score 100; 40th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 72.9% of revenue deployed · 55.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 22 of 23 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $1.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $253K · 28 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 23 of 23 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 10 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 13 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 56/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 4/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.