Council on Size & Weight Discrim
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 521747715
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2013–2020
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2020, Form 990-N 2007
- Location
- Mount Marion, NY, USA
- Phone
- 8457507710
- Rating
- 77
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Minority Rights
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $5,505
- Expenses
- $3,833
- Assets
- $3,616
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
5 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- WILLIAM J FABREY (PRESIDENT)
People named in this filing
- WILLIAM J FABREY (PRESIDENT)
- LYNN MCAFEE (SECRETARY/TR)
- CARRIE HEMENWAY (DIRECTOR)
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 2020. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To raise awareness of size and weight discrimination in the areas of the job market, treatment by health care professionals, treatment by the media. To also work to change people's attitudes regarding prejudices about weight and size to show that happy, attractive, capable people come in all sizes and to encourage individuals to stand up for those who may suffer weight and size discrimination.
What it reported doing in 2020
Involvement in the asdah organization, the social media, and other venues, in ongoing efforts to raise awareness of size and weight discrimination issues, including bullying
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 100% 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
SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Program spending has declined or grown slowly and revenue has declined or grown slowly.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 81
- Transparency & Controls: 82
- Sustainability: 53
- Growth: 20
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 69.6%; rating input score 70
- Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 30.4%; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.94; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -6.2% per year; rating input score 0; 45th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -4.8% per year; rating input score 0; 48th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 3% per year; rating input score 100; 50th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 69.6% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $4K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
- Consistency: 6 of 6 current checks pass
- Schedules: 2 filed schedules
- Filing history: 8 filing years from 2013 to 2020
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- 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 — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 34/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.