New York Technology Council Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
271148272
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2016
Forms available
Form 990 2016, Form 990-EZ 2011
Location
New York, NY, USA
Phone
6464351088
Rating
61
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Chambers of Commerce & Business Leagues

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$166,973
Expenses
$148,925
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ERIK GRIMMELMANN (PRESIDENT AND CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • ERIK GRIMMELMANN (PRESIDENT AND CEO): $47,313 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The New York technology council is a membership-based trade association dedicated to the furtherance of the technology industry in New York city and the surrounding area.

What it reported doing in 2016

The New York technology council educates its members and others in the larger technology community on current issues by producing presentations and panel discussions on relevant topics. Among the topics covered in 2016 were:1. Tour de finance: the ipo exit strategy2. The boy who could change the world: the writings of aaron swartz3. Intellectual property protection essentials4. Navigating the tech job market in 20165. Venture capital update 2016: market outlook and series a terms6. Are we doomed? Tech innovation may be the answer but not fast enough7. Acm-w conference for women computer science students8. Branding and marketing for self employed professionals

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 100% 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.
  • 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 a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 44
  • Transparency & Controls: 83
  • Accountability: 72
  • Sustainability: 33
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 47.2%; rating input score 47
  • Program expense ratio: 52.9%; rating input score 53
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 87.5%; rating input score 88; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: 10.8%; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 31.8%; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -27.6% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 13.5% per year; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -7% per year; rating input score 0; 15th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 47.2% of revenue deployed · 52.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 8 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $79K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $47K · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 27 of 28 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2012 to 2016
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 47/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 53/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 1/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D land buildings reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 10/100.