Babylon Village Pride Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 990885524
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2025–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2025, Form 990-N 2024
- Location
- Babylon, NY, USA
- Phone
- 7143374817
- Rating
- 78
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- LGBT Centers
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $59,836
- Expenses
- $49,810
- Assets
- $34,967
- Liabilities
- $891
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
3 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- MICHAEL ROMAN (PRESIDENT)
People named in this filing
- MICHAEL ROMAN (PRESIDENT)
- JOHN DIFIGLIA (TREASURER)
- JOE MORAN (SECRETARY)
Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Empowering and uniting our diverse community, babylon village pride is committed to fostering inclusivity, celebrating lgbtq+ identities, promoting equality, and creating a supportive environment where all individuals can thrive without fear of discrimination or prejudice. We do this by producing lgbtq+ pride events, distributing scholarships, and supporting local initiatives through community grants.
What it reported doing in 2025
Babylon village pride parade: to unite and empower the community, the organization hosts an annual parade in babylon village during pride month. The celebration was created to bring people together and provide a space for acceptance, acknowledgement, and appreciation for the queer community in babylon, and the greater long island area. These efforts, supported by local businesses and the community, features a parade of over 40 cars and welcome over 5,000 attendees in a powerful celebration of community and inclusion.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 51% for direct work, and 49% for grants.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. Total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown and liabilities are high compared with assets.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 70
- Transparency & Controls: 100
- Sustainability: 53
- Growth: NotEnoughData
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 64.6%; rating input score 65
- Program expense ratio: 77.6%; rating input score 78
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 16.8%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.7; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: Limited
- Asset growth: Limited
Details
- Where the money goes: 64.6% of revenue deployed · 77.6% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 3 filed program accomplishments · $39K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
- Consistency: 9 of 9 current checks pass
- Schedules: 3 filed schedules
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
Key Signals
Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 39/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 21/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.