Empire State Pride Agenda Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
061308493
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2016–2017
Forms available
Form 990 2015, Form 990-EZ 2017
Location
New York, NY, USA
Phone
2127157816
Rating
35
Verdict
REVIEW
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Civil Rights

Reported finances

Revenue
$18,179
Expenses
$9,099
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$636,112

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

People named in this filing

  • NORMAN C SIMON (CHAIR)
  • MELISSA SKLARZ (VICE CHAIR)
  • CATHARINE HOUGH (TREASURER)

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 2017. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The empire state pride agenda is New York's statewide lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (lgbt) advocacy group. Our mission is to win equality and justice for lgbt new yorkers and our families. We recognize that while significant cultural, legal and governmental advances have led to greater equality for lgbt new yorkers, we and our families remain highly vulnerable without the vast majority of rights and protections that most new yorkers take for granted. Through our advocacy programs, we build a coalition of diverse partners to move government on policy and legislative change that will further equality for lgbt new yorkers and our families with the broader goals of social, racial and economic justice.

What it reported doing in 2017

In 2017, the organization ceased conducting its programs and dissolved.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 100% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

REVIEW - The filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 50
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 49.9%; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 2; 2nd 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: -200% per year; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -127.7% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -121.3% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 12 people listed
  • Consistency: 8 of 9 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2016 to 2017
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 2 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: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part III transfer expenses within program total did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 2/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.