Anderson Foundation for Autism

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
800363172
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2008
Location
Staatsburg, NY, USA
Phone
8458899211
Rating
62
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Health

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,055,419
Expenses
$1,007,005
Assets
$10,078,938
Liabilities
$148,834

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

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • PATRICK PAUL (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • PATRICK PAUL (CEO): $702,258 total reported compensation
  • TINA CHIRICO (CFO (ENDED 09/24)): $248,643 total reported compensation
  • ELIZA BOZENSKI (CHIEF DEVELOPMENT OFFICER): $203,733 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Dedicated to providing the highest quality programs possible for children and adults with autism and other developmental disabilities equally important is our commitment to maintain an ongoing, fully integrated support network for children's families and guardians. As an organization, we strive to provide an enriched and positive climate filled with educational, cultural and recreational activities designed to foster continuous growth, independence and social interaction. We are dedicated to being a results oriented forerunner of agencies by offering the most current state of the art program opportunities.

What it reported doing in 2024

Anderson foundation for autism's function involves fundraising for the benefit of the programs run by anderson center for autism and anderson center services, as well as programs and initiatives in keeping with the mission of anderson center for autism, to optimize the quality of life for people with autism. Anderson foundation for autism's primary responsibility is to oversee the endowment fund and general fundraising for anderson center for autism and anderson center services.

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 - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 42
  • Transparency & Controls: 62
  • Accountability: 91
  • Sustainability: 59
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 51.1%; rating input score 51
  • Program expense ratio: 39.6%; rating input score 40
  • Fundraising efficiency: $1.52 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 24th 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: 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 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 4.6%; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 10.01; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 23.8%; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 8.7% per year; rating input score 100; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5.6% per year; rating input score 100; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 9.6% per year; rating input score 100; 57th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 51.1% of revenue deployed · 39.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $398K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $702K · 14 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $191K reported
  • Consistency: 27 of 28 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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 51/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 40/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 4/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 49/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 11/100.