Nassau County Ahrc Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
113241841
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Brookville, NY, USA
Phone
5166261000
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Public Foundations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$5,259,763
Expenses
$2,519,860
Assets
$65,369,110
Liabilities
$912,580

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

Leadership & pay

17 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • LLOYD GROVEMAN (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • THOMAS P ROSICKI ESQ (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • MARY MCNAMARA (FOUNDATION DIRECTOR): $247,962 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To receive and administer funds for the benefit of children and adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities ("idd"). By directing financial resources to critical programs and initiatives, nassau county ahrc foundation, inc. ("ahrc foundation") supports opportunities including, but not limited to, education, healthcare, employment, recreation, and community inclusion, fostering choice and wellbeing for people with idd.

What it reported doing in 2025

Ahrc foundation's purpose is to receive and administer funds for the benefit of children and adults with developmental disabilities (idd). By directing financial resources to critical programs and initiatives, ahrc foundation supports opportunities including, but not limited to, education, healthcare, employment, recreation, community inclusion, and fostering choice and well being for people with idd. The foundation also administers a community trust program, offering first-party and third party supplemental needs trusts for people with idd.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • 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 few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 54
  • Transparency & Controls: 73
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 84
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 57.5%; rating input score 57
  • Program expense ratio: 59.2%; rating input score 59
  • Fundraising efficiency: $7.21 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.4%; rating input score 94; 25th 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: 98.9%; rating input score 99; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 52.1%; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 25.94; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 9.8%; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 9.8% per year; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.1% per year; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 10.7% per year; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 57.5% of revenue deployed · 59.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 15 of 15 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $248K · 17 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 33 of 34 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, executive pay, and related organizations
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 11 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 14 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.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 57/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 59/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 24/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 34/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.