New York City Partnership Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
133202011
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
New York, NY, USA
Phone
2124937400
Rating
80
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Community Foundations

Reported finances

Revenue
$5,099,690
Expenses
$6,182,617
Assets
$41,678,527
Liabilities
$603,205

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

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Kathryn S Wylde (Vice President and Director)
  • Maria Gotsch (President and Director)
  • Merrill Pond (Executive Vice President)
  • Jennifer Fine (Executive Vice President)
  • Erin Jurew (Senior Vice President)
  • Arminda Aviles Kelly (Senior Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Kathryn S Wylde (Vice President and Director): $1,692,901 total reported compensation
  • Maria Gotsch (President and Director): $879,504 total reported compensation
  • Anthony Giugliano (Treasurer): $495,384 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

See Schedule O

What it reported doing in 2024

The David Rockefeller Fellows was established in 1989 as a tribute to the civic leadership of The Partnership for New York Citys founding chairman, and to educate and engage a rising generation of private sector leaders in the civic needs of New York City so they will be able to take an active role in shaping New York Citys future. Each year approximately 30 Fellows are selected to participate in meetings and site visits that will provide a network for personal leadership development and to help Fellows become aware of the opportunities for public-private partnerships and the benefits of the partnerships between the City and their business. The Fellows meet with a number of CEOs from member companies of The Partnership for New York City, Inc., a related entity. The program counts over 500 alumni, most of whom remain active in Organization activities on an ongoing basis.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 64% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 66% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 96
  • Transparency & Controls: 67
  • Accountability: 74
  • Sustainability: 44
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 93%; rating input score 93
  • Fundraising efficiency: $109.25 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 13th 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: 93.4%; rating input score 93; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 71.4%; rating input score 71; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: -21.2%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 6.74; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5.7%; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 9.9% per year; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.4% per year; rating input score 100; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -2% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 93% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 7 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $5.7M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $1.7M · 15 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $158K reported
  • Consistency: 32 of 33 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2020 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 6 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 6/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 49/100.