New York Taxi Workers Alliance

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
134000097
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Long Island City, NY, USA
Phone
9737831040
Rating
65
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Ethnic, Immigrant Centers

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,752,826
Expenses
$1,773,510
Assets
$1,078,346
Liabilities
$820,639

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • Javaid Tariq (Member): $78,800 total reported compensation
  • Bhairavi Desai (Director): $67,710 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The primary purpose of the nytwa is to advocate for the nyc taxi workers against discrimination, abuse and unfair practices. In addtion we provide education, address health issues and privide support for members and thier families.

What it reported doing in 2024

To provide such services as driving license protection, safe driving education, crime victim support, wage theft recovery, social benefits application support such as food stamps and tenant eviction defense, life insurance policy, and access to health care. Also, to bring social awareness to the challenges facing yellow cab taxi drivers, app-dispatched drivers, greencab drivers, corporate black car and livery drivers licensed to work in New York city and to provide advice and support to drivers working in other major cities. To monitor city, state and federal legislation and litigation that may create undue hardships on drivers and their families. To engage in impact litigation to uplift the rights of drivers as a class.

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 86% 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. The filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 66
  • Transparency & Controls: 66
  • Accountability: 63
  • Sustainability: 29
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 72.1%; rating input score 72
  • Program expense ratio: 71.3%; rating input score 71
  • Fundraising efficiency: $4.96 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 86.7%; rating input score 87; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 1 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Limited
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Fail
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -1.2%; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.61; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.76; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 8.3%; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 6.9% per year; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.8% per year; rating input score 100; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 18.7% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 72.1% of revenue deployed · 71.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 1 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $1.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $79K · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 27 of 28 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • 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: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 17/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 32/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 28/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 9/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 43/100.