Hudson Valley LGBTQ Community Center Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
203721531
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Kingston, NY, USA
Phone
8453315300
Rating
82
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Human Services N.E.C.

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$548,009
Expenses
$643,038
Assets
$1,189,146
Liabilities
$126,012

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Richard Heyl de Ortiz (Executive Director)
  • Willie Morris (President)
  • Kade Friedman (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Richard Heyl de Ortiz (Executive Director): $110,889 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

As a safe, supportive environment, the Hudson Valley LBGTQ Community Center provides services, professional resources, and programs that unite the lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans-gender, and queer community across lines of age, race, gender, and economics. Our purpose is to strengthen, support and celebrate LGBTQ individuals, families, and groups in their efforts to achieve their fullest potential. The Center strives for positive social changes through advocacy, community, education, cultural awareness, and wellness programs that assist in the creation, development and growth of LGBTQ affirming organizations, institutions, and culture within the community at large.

What it reported doing in 2024

In 2024, the organization's Well-Being Institute provided individual and groupcounseling to 45 individuals in 164 sessions, and ancillary well-being services to an additional 92 individuals. 213 individuals received supports via attendance in the organization's social and support groups. Total attendance in these groups, most of which meet weekly, was 2,390. 3,475 individuals attended special events and programs presented by the organization and an additional 205 benefited from drop-in support from the organization's library and cyber center. Finally, more than 270 individuals received information and referrals via drop-in, phone, email and direct message.

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 expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 79
  • Transparency & Controls: 85
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 31
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 89.8%; rating input score 90
  • Program expense ratio: 76.4%; rating input score 76
  • Fundraising efficiency: $8.1 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 8th 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: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -17.3%; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.85; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.11; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 17.2%; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 10.5% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6% per year; rating input score 100; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6.3% per year; rating input score 100; 45th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 89.8% of revenue deployed · 76.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 10 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $491K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $111K · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 23 of 25 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 31/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 11/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Independent members within voting members did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 19/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 42/100.