Let's Work for Good

Legal name: Let's Work for Good Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
473892053
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2015
Location
East Brunswick, NJ, US
Phone
+1 (201) 621 2245
Rating
71
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Employment Procurement Assistance

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,623,458
Expenses
$2,579,468
Assets
$2,652,228
Liabilities
$1,921,934

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Karen Katzman (Executive Director until 11/11/24)
  • Leslie Long (Executive Director)
  • Dr Steven Bier (President until 7/1/24)

Highest reported compensation

  • Ryan D Smith (Director): $1,489,010 total reported compensation
  • Michael Herr (Director): $915,607 total reported compensation
  • George Contos (Chairman): $677,247 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Let’s Work for Good is a 501(c)(3) founded in 2015 which focuses on creating meaningful and lasting employment for adults with Autism and Developmental Disabilities.

What it reported doing in 2024

Popcorn for the People is produced by disabled workers, many of whom are on the autism spectrum. Adults with disabilities are involved in all aspects of the Popcorn production as well as labeling, packaging, shipping work and on-line retail operations.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 85% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and a relatively small share of voting board members are independent.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 92
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 44
  • Sustainability: 19
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 80.1%; rating input score 80
  • Fundraising efficiency: $147.2 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 22nd 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: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 20%; rating input score 20; 9th 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: -58.9%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.03; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.72; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 10.7%; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 26.3% per year; rating input score 100; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 25.2% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 35.2% per year; rating input score 100; 93rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 2 programs and campaigns described on the official site
  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 80.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 1 of 5 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $1.5M · 11 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 20 of 21 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2016 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 32 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.
  • 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 20/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 2/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 43/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 10/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 34/100.