Comprehensive Youth Development Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 133861648
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2009–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- New York, NY, USA
- Phone
- 2123877091
- Rating
- 81
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Alliance/Advocacy
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $3,283,083
- Expenses
- $3,502,541
- Assets
- $3,142,780
- Liabilities
- $151,865
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
20 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- MICHAEL ROBERTS (SECRETARY/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
- MARGARET AYLWARD (ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- MICHAEL ROBERTS (SECRETARY/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $211,080 total reported compensation
- MARGARET AYLWARD (ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $192,279 total reported compensation
- CAMILLE FLEMING (CONTROLLER): $104,858 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Comprehensive youth development, inc. Partners with nyc public high schools to prepare young adults, ages 14-24, to secure a successful future for themselves and their families. Through this partnership, our students develop the capability to graduate from high school and make informed decisions on higher education and careers. Founded in 1995, cyd annually serves students and alumni, most of whom are under-credited for their age, english language learners, and/or dealing with significant social issues such as housing instability, parenthood or medical health issues.
What it reported doing in 2024
Cyd provides support to help adolescents and older youth stay in school while addressing the problems and adult responsibilities that might otherwise prevent them from attending school. Many students, including recent immigrants, teen parents and dropouts, come to cyd to receive support such as tutoring, employment, personal counseling, homelessness prevention, legal aid, and medical services referrals.
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
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 expenses are high relative to revenue.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 79
- Transparency & Controls: 79
- Accountability: 95
- Sustainability: 28
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 84.8%; rating input score 85
- Program expense ratio: 79.3%; rating input score 79
- Fundraising efficiency: $13.53 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Pass
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- 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: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- 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: -6.7%; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.9; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.05; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 14.5%; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 1.4% per year; rating input score 100; 19th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 2.6% per year; rating input score 100; 24th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 2.9% per year; rating input score 100; 24th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 84.8% of revenue deployed · 79.3% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 17 of 17 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2.8M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $211K · 20 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 35 of 35 current checks pass
- Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 15 filing years from 2009 to 2024
- 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.
- Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.
Key Signals
Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 47/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 17/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 33/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 20/100.