Arthur Ashe Institute for Urban Health Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
113185372
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Brooklyn, NY, USA
Phone
7182703101
Rating
79
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Public Health Program (Includes General Health and Wellness Promotion Services)

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,289,994
Expenses
$2,751,906
Assets
$5,267,737
Liabilities
$211,904

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

20 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MARILYN FRASER (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • MARILYN FRASER (CEO): $192,385 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Design, incubate and replicate community-based behavioral interventions.

What it reported doing in 2025

Education & training: the institute sponsors the health science academy for minority middle and high school students. The middle school component: (1) raises students career and educational expectations; (2) exposes them to the variety of careers in health; (3) increases their awareness of health issues affecting their community; and (4) provides hands-on activities. The 3-year, college-level high school component for students 10th through 12th grades: (1) offers 4-week modules in study/time management skills and research and 10-week modules in health disparities and physiology; (2) engages minority health professionals as instructors and guest speakers; (3) motivates students to become active in addressing health disparities; and (4) prepares them to succeed at science majors in college.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 82
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 32
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 92%; rating input score 92
  • Program expense ratio: 76.2%; rating input score 76
  • Fundraising efficiency: $16.06 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 14th 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: 8 of 8 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: 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: -20.2%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.91; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.04; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 7%; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 3.5% per year; rating input score 100; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.1% per year; rating input score 100; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 14.7% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 92% of revenue deployed · 76.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 19 of 19 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $2.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $192K · 20 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 22 of 23 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 5/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 52/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 56/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 45/100.