No Need Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 933715610
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2025–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2025, Form 990-N 2024
- Location
- Tampa, FL, USA
- Phone
- 8136386778
- Rating
- 93
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Community Coalitions
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $58,950
- Expenses
- $34,966
- Assets
- $27,525
- Liabilities
- $2,785
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
3 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Asiel Perez (President and CEO)
- Mathew Bowen (Vice President)
People named in this filing
- Asiel Perez (President and CEO)
- Mathew Bowen (Vice President)
- James Wetherbee (Secretary)
Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
No Need Garage provides relief to the poor distressed and underprivileged in the Tampa Bay area by offering free and affordable automotive repair services. Our primary purpose is to prevent transportation-related financial crises ensuring that unexpected vehicle repairs do not threaten families job security financial stability or safety on the roadways.
What it reported doing in 2025
The Affordable Repair and Safety Program is our primary daily operation providing free and heavily discounted automotive repairs to families experiencing financial hardship the A.L.I.C.E. demographic. In FY 2025 we successfully served 97 families in the Tampa Bay area directly impacting 122 children. By ensuring their vehicles were safe and operational we helped these families maintain reliable transportation to retain their jobs and stay safe on the road. In FY2025 we gifted over $107,000 value of labor and parts to these families in need.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 88% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- 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.
The verdict
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filed totals do not add up and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 100
- Transparency & Controls: 100
- Sustainability: 55
- Growth: NotEnoughData
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
- Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 40.7%; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.79; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.1; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 45.2%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: Limited
- Asset growth: Limited
Details
- Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $61K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
- Consistency: 8 of 9 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 3 filed schedules
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
- 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 — Transparency & Controls: Part III program expenses within total did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 41/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 4/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 15/100.