Nesivos Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
465613314
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2015, Form 990-N 2014
Location
Lakewood, NJ, USA
Rating
63
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Youth Development Programs

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,310,982
Expenses
$1,673,652
Assets
$161,121
Liabilities
$451,400

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

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • YESHI GHOORI (OFFICER): $82,200 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Teens today are confronted with complex challenges unknown in the past. The at-risk teen community can include high school drop outs, as well as those still in school, teens dealing with substance abuse, criminal behaviors, lack of self-esteem, poor school performance, discipline issues in school, and absenteeism. Nesivos will be staffed with professionals that can analyze the teen and advise the best course of action, including mentorship, mental health referrals, educational or vocational training, substance abuse clinic referrals, and/or enrollment in after school programs, recreational programs and/or summer programs.nesivos will be taking a population at greatest risk for future crime and potential cost to government and the public, and through its efforts and programs and mentors and caring, giving them the tools they need to change the trajectory of their life.

What it reported doing in 2024

Providing professional assessments for teenagers at-risk and guiding them to appropriate corrective assistance, helping them become productive members of society.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 94% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 80% for direct work, and 20% for grants.

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: 44
  • Transparency & Controls: 84
  • Accountability: 71
  • Sustainability: 11
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 53.4%; rating input score 53
  • Program expense ratio: 41.9%; rating input score 42
  • Fundraising efficiency: $2.29 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 83.3%; rating input score 83; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 97.8%; rating input score 98; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 85.7%; rating input score 86; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: -27.7%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.1; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 2.8; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.9%; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 21.3% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 23.8% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 33.3% per year; rating input score 100; 92nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 53.4% of revenue deployed · 41.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 7 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $701K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $82K · 7 people listed
  • Consistency: 29 of 31 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2016 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 7 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 4 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 53/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 42/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 7/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 6/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 5/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 1/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 53/100.