City Science Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
271860510
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2017
Forms available
Form 990 2017, Form 990-EZ 2012
Location
Hudson, NY, USA
Phone
3478756000
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Interdisciplinary Research

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$275,452
Expenses
$274,426
Assets
$80,523
Liabilities
$139,437

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • THOR SNILSBERG (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • THOR SNILSBERG (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $35,076 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

City science is committed to raising the quality of science education while supporting environmental stewardship. By using the natural and built environments of cities as laboratories for active learning, we transform teaching to make science relevant and engaging for students.

What it reported doing in 2017

In fiscal year 2018, city science explorations provide students with hands-on enrichment activities that make stem learning exciting and relevant. City science coaches provide k-8 educators with professional development that boosts their confidence facilitating stem inquiry and activities. During the fiscal year, city science directly served 543 students and 293 educators across 14 school and after-school settings. Throughout the year, a focus on lego robotics produced 3 new teams in underserved neighborhoods.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 74% 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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The required major-donor schedule is missing or incomplete and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 69
  • Transparency & Controls: 75
  • Accountability: 69
  • Sustainability: 28
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 69.7%; rating input score 70
  • Program expense ratio: 69.9%; rating input score 70
  • Fundraising efficiency: $21.01 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: No; rating input score 0
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 83.3%; rating input score 83; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 0.4%; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.29; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 1.73; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 12.8%; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 9.3% per year; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 16.2% per year; rating input score 100; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 18.9% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 69.7% of revenue deployed · 69.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 6 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $192K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $35K · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 28 of 28 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2013 to 2017
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Major donor itemization scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 41/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 17/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 3/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 29/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.