Helen Keller Services

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
111630807
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Official website data refreshed
Aug 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Brooklyn, NY, USA
Phone
7185222122
Rating
85
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Blind/Visually Impaired Centers

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$53,313,875
Expenses
$44,001,721
Assets
$165,266,346
Liabilities
$36,565,683

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

Leadership & pay

29 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Deborah Harlin (Executive Director)
  • John L Filek (Executive Director)
  • Susan Ruzenski (CEO)
  • Elizabeth Meade (Associate Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Susan Ruzenski (CEO): $299,011 total reported compensation
  • Rosanna Fodera (Director of Comprehensive Services): $244,301 total reported compensation
  • Mia Murro (Chief Administrative Officer): $219,370 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Our mission is to enable individuals who are blind, DeafBlind, have low vision or combined hearing and vision loss to live, work and thrive in their community of choice.

What it reported doing in 2024

HELEN KELLER NATIONAL CENTER (HKNC) - HKNC offers vocational rehabilitation services exclusively designed for youth and adults who are DeafBlind. HKNC overall mandates include provision of intensive services to individuals who are DeafBlind throughout the US and territories, provision of training and support to families, provision of training to professional, maintenance of national registry and charge to conduct of applied research and demonstration projects. HKNC comprised of 10 regions nationally, has a network of eleven regional offices, DeafBlind Specialists and Community Services Programs. HKNC operates a community residence in Manorhaven, N.Y.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 83
  • Transparency & Controls: 84
  • Accountability: 91
  • Sustainability: 75
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 89.3%; rating input score 89
  • Program expense ratio: 84.5%; rating input score 84
  • Fundraising efficiency: $16.38 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • 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; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 17.5%; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.76; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.22; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 3.9%; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 3.6% per year; rating input score 100; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.6% per year; rating input score 100; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8.4% per year; rating input score 100; 61st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 5 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 2 operating locations identified
  • Where the money goes: 89.3% of revenue deployed · 84.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 20 of 20 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 7 filed program accomplishments · $37.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $299K · 29 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $2.1M reported
  • Consistency: 37 of 37 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 9 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 53/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 27/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.