Daytop Village Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
136181438
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2015
Forms available
Form 990 2015
Location
Briarwood, NY, USA
Phone
7182062000
Rating
71
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Alcohol, Drug Abuse, Treatment Only

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$4,306,092
Expenses
$4,417,907
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Michael C Dailey (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • Michael C Dailey (CEO): $259,808 total reported compensation
  • Philip J Onorato (SVP/General Council): $202,118 total reported compensation
  • Gregory Bunt (SVP/Medical and Mental Health): $146,325 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To provide drug reabilitation and counseling services to clients and their families at several ambulatory treatment centers in New York state.

What it reported doing in 2015

Daytop Village is the oldest and largest substance abuse recovery and prevention program in the nation. Since 1963, the program has helped more than 100,000 adults and adolescents reclaim their lives from the ravages of drug and alcohol addiction. Daytops drug-free treatment approach is based on evidenced based practices and includes the self-help, peer support and the eradication of self-defeating behaviors. Each Daytop treatment program is holistic and individually designed to help the client make gains in every area of his or her life. The Holistic Approach, in combination with Daytops unique program philosophy and dedicated staff, is fundamental to Daytops 88 percent success rate among its graduates.

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.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 73
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 13
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 83.3%; rating input score 83
  • Program expense ratio: 81.2%; rating input score 81
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 11th 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: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: No; rating input score 0

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -2.6%; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 15.7%; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -73.4% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -16.4% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -24.9% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 83.3% of revenue deployed · 81.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $3.6M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $260K · 12 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 25 of 26 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, executive pay, and related organizations
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2009 to 2015
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 3 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.

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 — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 24/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Related-party transparency scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 12/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.