Empire State Consumer Project Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
800712966
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2012–2020
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2020, Form 990-N 2012
Location
Rochester, NY, USA
Phone
5853831317
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Public Health Program (Includes General Health and Wellness Promotion Services)

Reported finances

Revenue
$4,500
Expenses
$1,945
Assets
$2,894
Liabilities
$617

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

2 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JUDY BRAIMAN (President)

People named in this filing

  • JUDY BRAIMAN (President)
  • CAROL CHITTENDEN (Secretary)

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

Environmental consumer advocacy

What it reported doing in 2020

Inform the public, through the media, of environmental hazards, toxic chemicals, heavy metals, and advocate for higher standards through the government.annual toy safety news conference attended by local press with results of toys and products tested for toxins and metals, publicized to the community at large through the media.collection and testing of products thought to contain toxic chemicals and dangerous heavy metals which harm consumers.

Operating model

Revenue model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent revenue detail to tell how this nonprofit funds its work.
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 - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of total spending goes to programs. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 64
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 65
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 43.2%; rating input score 43
  • 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: 56.8%; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.49; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.21; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 19.4% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 19.5% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 14.4% per year; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 43.2% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 2 people listed
  • Consistency: 7 of 7 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2012 to 2020
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 43/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 46/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 17/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.