Long Island Wound Healing Association C/o Charles a La Rosa Md
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 262600497
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2012–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2024
- Location
- West Islip, NY, USA
- Phone
- 2128293205
- Rating confidence
- Limited
- Sector
- Boards of Trade
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $0
- Expenses
- $3,817
- Assets
- $26,212
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
3 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- CHARLES A LA ROSA MD (PRESIDENT/DIRECTOR)
- PETER J MANCUSO DPM (VICE PRESIDENT/DIRECTOR)
People named in this filing
- CHARLES A LA ROSA MD (PRESIDENT/DIRECTOR)
- PETER J MANCUSO DPM (VICE PRESIDENT/DIRECTOR)
- CHRISTINE FANELLI (TREASURER/DIRECTOR)
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 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To promote, develop, establish, coordinate, educate and train under quality leadership and supervision, an organization which provides a forum for advanced wound healing practitioners of the long island, New York region.
What it reported doing in 2024
Throughout the year educational meetings and seminars are provided to the members of the association. Nationally renowned speakers are invited to speak and educate its members and attendees. The association collects, solicits, and otherwise raises money from public and private sources, and distributes and expends funds collected for the purposes mentioned 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
- 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
- The available evidence is not sufficient to produce an overall rating for this filing. This is not a warning sign.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 24
- Transparency & Controls: 82
- Sustainability: 40
- Growth: 0
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: Limited
- Program expense ratio: 65.4%; rating input score 65
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
Sustainability
- Operating margin: Limited
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 6.87; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -14.8% per year; rating input score 0; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -18.1% per year; rating input score 0; 16th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -2.7% per year; rating input score 0; 29th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 65.4% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
- Consistency: 7 of 7 current checks pass
- Schedules: 2 filed schedules
- Filing history: 12 filing years from 2012 to 2024
- 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 — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.