Lower East Side Harm Reduction Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
133727641
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2016
Forms available
Form 990 2016
Location
New York, NY, USA
Phone
2122266333
Rating
56
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Dispute Resolution, Mediation Services

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$114,184
Expenses
$51,545
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Sharen Duke (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Sharen Duke (Executive Director): $239,764 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

LESHRC's mission is to reduce the spread of HIV infection among drug users and others in the lower east side of Manhattan. The organization strives to promote harm reduction principles through needle exchange program for injection drug users and providing information about HIV and AIDS.

What it reported doing in 2016

Lower East Side Harm Reduction Center, Inc. (LESHRC) is a culturally diverse, community-based organization whose mission is to reduce the spread of HIV infection among drug users (IDU) and others on the lower east side of Manhattan. Lower East Side Harm Reduction Center, Inc. (LESHRC) strives to promote harm reduction principles through needle exchange programs, community outreach, peer training, and provision of mental health services.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 99% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
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

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

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 51
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 46
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 39.3%; rating input score 39
  • Program expense ratio: 87%; rating input score 87
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: 66.7%; rating input score 67; 16th 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: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 54.9%; rating input score 95; 95th 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: 39.6%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -40.2% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -20.9% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -32.7% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 39.3% of revenue deployed · 87% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 2 of 3 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $45K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $240K · 3 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 19 of 19 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2011 to 2016
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 39/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 1/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 6/100.