Center for Active Design Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 461016582
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2013–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Brooklyn, NY, USA
- Phone
- 2122272831
- Rating
- 76
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Primary, Elementary Schools
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $2,158,624
- Expenses
- $2,116,680
- Assets
- $303,729
- Liabilities
- $964,060
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
19 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- JOANNA FRANK (PRESIDENT & CEO)
Highest reported compensation
- JOANNA FRANK (PRESIDENT & CEO): $317,108 total reported compensation
- SARA KARERAT (MANAGING DIRECTOR): $177,291 total reported compensation
- RACHAEL RIZZO (DIRECTOR, STANDARD DEVELOPMENT): $121,799 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To transform design and development practice to support health, ensuring equitable access to vibrant public and private spaces that support optimal quality of life.
What it reported doing in 2024
The center for active design is the leading non-profit organization using design to foster healthy and engaged communities. Cfad, which operates the fitwel healthy building certification system, applies its multi-disciplinary expertise to empower decision-makers, providing publications, original research, certification, technical assistance, and digital tools. Cfad is responsive to unique local priorities and results in measurable outcomes.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 99% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- 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
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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 76
- Transparency & Controls: 76
- Accountability: 87
- Sustainability: 22
- Growth: 80
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 85%; rating input score 85
- Program expense ratio: 86.7%; rating input score 87
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
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; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 24th 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: 1.9%; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.14; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 3.17; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 16.8%; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 6.6% per year; rating input score 100; 48th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 7.4% per year; rating input score 100; 56th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -2% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 85% of revenue deployed · 86.7% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 14 of 15 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.8M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $317K · 19 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $260K reported
- Consistency: 34 of 34 current checks pass
- Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, executive pay, and related organizations
- Filing history: 11 filing years from 2013 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 2 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 4/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 41/100.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 1/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 16/100.