New York City Foundation for Computer Science Education Inc D/b/a Csforall

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
462640266
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
New York, NY, USA
Phone
9177512251
Rating
79
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Public, Societal Benefit

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,113,266
Expenses
$4,015,278
Assets
$1,155,492
Liabilities
$348,237

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

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • LEIGH ANN DELYSER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • DIONNE WILLIAMS (SR. DIRECTOR, OPERATIONS): $197,334 total reported compensation
  • CAMIE BELGRAVE (SR. DIRECTOR, PROGRAMS & P): $189,468 total reported compensation
  • LEIGH ANN DELYSER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $181,129 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Csforall's mission is to make high-quality computer science an integral part of the educational experience of all k-12 students and teachers in the united states and to support student pathways to college and career success.

What it reported doing in 2024

The csforall bpc alliance is a national science foundation (nsf) funded research grant spanning a three year period with a total revenue of $1.94 million. The goals of the alliance are to build local capacity, raise awareness, and build a national data landscape of the csforall member actions resulting in broadening participation in computing outcomes for students historically marginalized or underrepresented, particularly, girls, black or african american, and hispanic or latine students.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 97% 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

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 80
  • Transparency & Controls: 79
  • Accountability: 89
  • Sustainability: 9
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 90.9%; rating input score 91
  • Program expense ratio: 70.4%; rating input score 70
  • Fundraising efficiency: $15.15 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 88.9%; rating input score 89; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -29%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.29; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.3; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 31.9%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 11.4% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 10.5% per year; rating input score 100; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 11.6% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 90.9% of revenue deployed · 70.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 9 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $2.8M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $197K · 16 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 4 contractors listed · $580K reported
  • Consistency: 29 of 29 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2013 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 12 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 4/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 51/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 9/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 5/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 34/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.