Newburgh Community Action Committee Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
146035155
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2009
Forms available
Form 990 2009
Location
Newburgh, NY, USA
Phone
8455620100
Rating confidence
Limited
Sector
Human Service Organizations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$982,240
Expenses
$1,046,225
Assets
$244,347
Liabilities
$413,388

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2009. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2009. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To serve the greater newburgh area to mobilize public and private resources in development, implementation and support of anti-poverty programs.

What it reported doing in 2009

Subsidized employment - ncac subsidizes wages of its customers while employers agree to provide a working environment geared to the enhancement of customers' skills. At the end of the agreed upon subsidy period, the expected outcome is the employer hiring the customer to continue on with his/her career. The total number of clients employed through this program for the fiscal year was 56.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 74% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

- The available evidence is not sufficient to produce an overall rating for this filing. This is not a warning sign.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: NotEnoughData
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 96
  • Sustainability: 21
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: Limited
  • Program expense ratio: Limited
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -6.5%; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.23; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 1.69; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 7.2%; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
  • Governance: 14 of 15 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $883K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $75K · 15 people listed
  • Consistency: 30 of 30 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.

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 24/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 13/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 3/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 48/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.