Helping Hands of Broome County Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
264510024
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2010–2015
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2015
Location
Johnson City, NY, USA
Phone
6077297082
Rating
83
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Cancer

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$260
Expenses
$15,877
Assets
$0

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • HAROON BAJWA (President)
  • WILLIAM PEACOCK (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • HAROON BAJWA (President)
  • GRACE ODOM (Treasurer)
  • MAUREEN KOSIK (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 2015. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To combat the financial side effects of cancer patients' fights against their disease.

What it reported doing in 2015

Provided in small amounts food, clothing, medical treatment, transportation or other emergency needs of persons or families who reside in broome, chenango, tioga or Delaware county, New York suffering from the financial side effects of combating the disease of cancer.advised cancer patients and their families about assistance that may be available to them in from governmental or other charitable organizations.performed incidental acts connected to the purposes listed above.

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
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and revenue has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 96
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 7
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 90.3%; rating input score 90

Transparency & Controls

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

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -6,006.5%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 2% per year; rating input score 100; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -11.5% per year; rating input score 0; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -20.3% per year; rating input score 0; 13th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 90.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $14K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 6 of 6 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2010 to 2015
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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 — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 1/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 1/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 57/100.