East Harlem Tutorial Program Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 237439789
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2011–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- New York, NY, USA
- Phone
- 2128310650
- Rating
- 78
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Standard
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $17,767,778
- Expenses
- $16,519,419
- Assets
- $135,864,367
- Liabilities
- $70,916,516
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
32 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- MARINA COFIELD (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER)
- JEFFREY GINSBURG (FORMER CEO)
Highest reported compensation
- MARINA COFIELD (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER): $304,349 total reported compensation
- INGRID SOTELO (CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER): $265,785 total reported compensation
- NYASHA MANIGAULT (CHIEF FINANCE OFFICER): $231,704 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
As a vital east harlem education and enrichment center, ehtp works with students from early childhood through adulthood to prepare them with the academic skills, strength of character, and social and emotional well-being to excel in high school and college or other postsecondary choice, to lead in their communities, and to realize their best possible selves.
What it reported doing in 2024
High school programehtp's high school program served 120 students in grades 9-12 from the greater east harlem community. Students participated in year-round college prep, academic, and enrichment activities such as robotics and running club.st postsecondary access: we had 27 seniors in our college mentoring program (cmp) in fy24 east (one of whom was a senior attending east harlem scholars academies high school--ehsa/hs). All 27 (100%) of ost seniors applied to and were accepted to college. The breakdown of the institutions is below:*cuny: 9 students (mix of 2- and 4-year colleges.);*hbcu: 1 student;*suny: 3 students (all at 4 year colleges);*private & out-of-state (oos) public colleges: 10 students at private colleges; 1 at an oos public college (mix of nys and elsewhere; highlights include a posse scholar at brandeis u. And another at wheaton college; a student at university of Texas/austin; and undocumented students at university of Massachusetts/boston and university of southern California); and*other: 2 students; 1 enlisted in the military; the other is taking a gap year to work at ehtp and then attend a cuny school in fall 2025.ost postsecondary success: we provided support services to 242 college scholars including book reimbursements, college mentoring program year 2, "real talk" counseling sessions, events, and individual outreach. In addition to our fall and spring book reimbursement requests, we also use the national student clearinghouse and cuny network for college success to track our scholars. Through our survey, one shared a resource they developed for undocumented cuny students during their internship with the undocumented and immigrant student programs at cuny. We collaborated with basta, a nonprofit that seeks to bridge the employment gap and build careers for first-generation students, to assist our 19 first-year college scholars with understanding their career options using basta's seekr survey. A college freshman and a senior were selected to participate in the data trail mt. Sinai program (formerly, cloud-based data science+), self-paced, johns hopkins-created biostatistics modules that are guided by mt. Sinai mentors and result in capstone projects.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 69% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 64% for direct work, and 36% for grants.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and reported officer compensation is a large share of total spending, which may reflect staffing concentration.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 57
- Transparency & Controls: 92
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 60
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 61%; rating input score 61
- Program expense ratio: 63.3%; rating input score 63
- Fundraising efficiency: $4.54 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
- Compensation committee: Pass
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
- 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: Yes; rating input score 100
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 66th 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: 7%; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 8.22; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.52; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 10.6%; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 5.5% per year; rating input score 100; 46th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 6.3% per year; rating input score 100; 55th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 15.7% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 61% of revenue deployed · 63.3% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 23 of 23 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $10.5M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $304K · 32 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $680K reported
- Consistency: 42 of 42 current checks pass
- Schedules: 10 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, executive pay, and related organizations
- Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 10 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.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 18/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 18/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 27/100.