League of Women Voters of New York State Education Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
136215058
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Albany, NY, USA
Phone
(518) 465-4162
Rating
64
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$485,952
Expenses
$451,315
Assets
$2,027,918
Liabilities
$129,536

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

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • NANCY ROSENTHAL (PRESIDENT)
  • SALLY ROBINSON (1ST VICE PRESIDENT)
  • REGINA TILLMAN (3RD VICE PRESIDENT)
  • MARJORIE MCINTOSH (4TH VICE PRESIDENT)
  • JANE COLVIN (2ND VICE PRESIDENT)
  • ERICA SMITKA (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • ERICA SMITKA (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $83,039 total reported compensation
  • LAURA LADD BIERMAN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR - FORMER): $51,327 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Empowering voters and defending democracy.

What it reported doing in 2024

Education: the education foundation organizes programs to educate the public on current issues and elections, as well as direct programs for high school students.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 78% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 82% 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 - Most voting board members are independent and program spending has grown recently. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 59
  • Transparency & Controls: 45
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 53
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 59.6%; rating input score 60
  • Program expense ratio: 60.6%; rating input score 61
  • Fundraising efficiency: $12.15 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 81.8%; rating input score 82; 1st 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: 0%; rating input score 0; 19th 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: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • 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: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 7.1%; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.49; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.06; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 29.8%; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 4.4% per year; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.2% per year; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 10% per year; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 2 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 59.6% of revenue deployed · 60.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $273K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $83K · 16 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 22 of 24 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 45/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 55/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 11/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 30/100.