Lymetv

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
823920846
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Portland, ME, USA
Phone
5612122166
Rating
63
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Alliance/Advocacy Organizations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$53,582
Expenses
$30,257
Assets
$66,004
Liabilities
$2,522

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Adina Bercowicz (President and Executive Director)
  • Yan Zelener (Director of Science, Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • Adina Bercowicz (President and Executive Director)
  • Yan Zelener (Director of Science, Vice President)
  • Rebecca Vitsmun (Secretary)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

LymeTV is dedicated to educating the global community about Lyme and other tick-borne infectious diseases. We aim to reduce the incidence of these diseases through research, education campaigns, and film projects.

What it reported doing in 2025

Public Outreach Programs - LymeTV has partnerships with other public health organizations that serve the unhoused and underserved of our community who are at high risk for tick-borne diseases due to sleeping outside. These partnerships including shelters for the unhoused, substance abuse shelters, youth nonprofits, and more. We provide free tick repellent to our community partners who distribute the materials directly to our target populations. We collaborate with and provide health education for our other organizational partners.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% 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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - 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 a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 31
  • Transparency & Controls: 93
  • Accountability: 82
  • Sustainability: 60
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 22.3%; rating input score 22
  • Program expense ratio: 39.5%; rating input score 40
  • Fundraising efficiency: $7.82 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 19th 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 57
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 43.5%; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.18; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.04; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -7.3% per year; rating input score 0; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.8% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 15.1% per year; rating input score 100; 85th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 22.3% of revenue deployed · 39.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 4 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 6 filed program accomplishments · $12K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 24 of 25 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2020 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 22/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 40/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 6 not reported.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 47/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 39/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 18/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 58/100.