Gotham Gives Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
853808077
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
New York, NY, USA
Phone
2012406817
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Private Independent Foundations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,983,297
Expenses
$1,903,998
Assets
$3,961,597
Liabilities
$3,058,598

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

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JOANNE WILSON (PRESIDENT)
  • JENNIFER S KLOPP (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • JENNIFER S KLOPP (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $346,492 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Gotham gives invests in initiatives that reflect the rich diversity of New York city and improve systemic equity by creating social, educational, and cultural opportunities for all new yorkers.

What it reported doing in 2024

Investing in knowledge. The charity intends to provide grants to organizations in New York city to further improve educational opportunities and outcomes for students in New York city. One of the key ways the charity intends to further this charitable purpose is by providing grants to organizations, programs, and schools to accomplish the establishment of a citywide program designed to provide comprehensive, universal access to computer science education to public school students in the New York city public school system at each school level (elementary, middle and high school) by year 2025. As part of this work, the charity will host a computer science opportunity fair, an event to introduce public school students to opportunities available to them in the tech workplace and in higher education. The charity will seek sponsorships to underwrite the fair's expenses.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 99% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 85% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of total spending goes to programs and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 65
  • Transparency & Controls: 67
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 65
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 44.5%; rating input score 45
  • Program expense ratio: 92.2%; rating input score 92
  • Fundraising efficiency: $112.47 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 90.4%; rating input score 90; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • 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: Fail
    • 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: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 52.2%; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.08; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.77; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 18.2%; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 8.7% per year; rating input score 100; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5.3% per year; rating input score 100; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 3.9% per year; rating input score 100; 28th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 44.5% of revenue deployed · 92.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 3 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $1.8M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $346K · 4 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 24 of 25 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2020 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 7 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 6 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 45/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 11/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 14/100.