Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
833011862
IRS 990 coverage
2019–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
New York, NY, USA
Phone
6466009910
Rating
80
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Ethnic, Immigrant Centers

Reported finances

Revenue
$6,647,377
Expenses
$4,501,817
Assets
$14,459,639
Liabilities
$353,957

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

Leadership & pay

20 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • AMIT JAIN (PRESIDENT)
  • KAVITHA SREEHARSHA (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • RODRIGO HENG-LEHTINEN (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • CONCHITA CRUZ (CO-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • SWAPNA REDDY (CO-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • DOROTHY TEGELER (DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • CONCHITA CRUZ (CO-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $245,490 total reported compensation
  • SWAPNA REDDY (CO-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $242,845 total reported compensation
  • DOROTHY TEGELER (DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $239,646 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 asylum seeker advocacy project (asap) believes that asylum seekers can make great change by standing together. We provide our membership of asylum seekers with legal and community support. And we work with our members to build a more welcoming united states. Asap members come from more than 175 countries and live in every u.s. State and territory.

What it reported doing in 2024

Technology: asap harnessed technology to efficiently communicate with and serve immigrants and others in the united states.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 89% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and reported officer compensation is a large share of total spending, which may reflect staffing concentration.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 69
  • Transparency & Controls: 79
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 72
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 61.7%; rating input score 62
  • Program expense ratio: 84.6%; rating input score 85
  • Fundraising efficiency: $18.44 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • 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: 32.3%; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.21; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 37%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 27.7% per year; rating input score 100; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.7% per year; rating input score 100; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 21.6% per year; rating input score 100; 86th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 61.7% of revenue deployed · 84.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $3.8M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $245K · 20 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 27 of 27 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2019 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 8 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 57/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 3/100.