End of Life Choices New York Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
134048114
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
New York, NY, USA
Phone
2127262010
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$525,979
Expenses
$507,905
Assets
$253,640
Liabilities
$8,589

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • TERRY PERLIN (PRESIDENT)
  • KRISTEN KARLBERG (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • MANDI ZUCKER LSW CT (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • MANDI ZUCKER LSW CT (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $126,598 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

End of life choices New York seeks to expand end of life options, and improve end of life care, so new yorkers can have good quality of life at the end of life, and receive care in alignment with their wishes and values.

What it reported doing in 2024

End of life choices New York (eolcny) educates the general public, students and health care professionals about end of life issues by giving presentation on palliative care, pain management, advance directives, and patient rights; and by producing and distributing educational materials on end of life issues. They offer free counseling to patients and their families about end of life concerns, such as choosing treatment options, creating advance directives, and talking openly and honestly about health care wishes. They pursue legal and legislative reform to ensure a patients right to a peaceful death, including implementation and enforcement of advance directives, pain and symptom management, and legalization of aid in dying.end of life choices New York (eolcny) engages in a variety of educational and outreach efforts to inform the public about end of life options. During this fiscal year, eolcny created a volunteer training program focused on outreach, added regular training on advance care planning. We distributed numerous educational materials at health fairs and in-person presentations. We provided continuing education units to New York state licensed social workers. We hosted an annual online lecture with other 140 registrants. We produced a bimonthly electronic newsletter sent to a mailing list of over 4,000. We also began work on a new, updated website. We have published extensively in media across the state, on all platforms, including numerous letters to the editor and radio shows. We provided much education and research around the state on medical aid in dying and were instrumental in helping to pass the bill in both the assembly and senate.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 98% 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 - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 63
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 36
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 65.7%; rating input score 66
  • Program expense ratio: 67.7%; rating input score 68
  • Fundraising efficiency: $7.53 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 3.4%; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.5; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 24.9%; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 0.1% per year; rating input score 100; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -0.7% per year; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -3.4% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 65.7% of revenue deployed · 67.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $344K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $127K · 9 people listed
  • Consistency: 27 of 27 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2013 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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 29/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 46/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 23/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 10/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 57/100.