Nyc Strut Corporation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
814202910
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2016–2018
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2018
Location
New York, NY, USA
Phone
3309367928
Rating
87
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Arts, Cultural Organizations - Multipurpose

Reported finances

Revenue
$51,283
Expenses
$43,607
Assets
$85,176
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2018. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DANIELLE NAZINITSKY (PRESIDENT)
  • ALLISON NAZINITSKY (VICE PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • DANIELLE NAZINITSKY (PRESIDENT)
  • ALLISON NAZINITSKY (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • PIERCE NAZINITSKY (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 2018. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The purpose of nyc strut corporation is to enhance economic growth of the soho, nyc area by focusing on promotion and development of arts, craft, cultural and business community, and those areas of the community affecting economic growth

What it reported doing in 2018

Nyc strut corp has taken an initiative to keep the streets of soho clean, as a result the organization has raised funds to acquire trash cans & secure dpw maintenance

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 100% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
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.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Reported officer compensation is a large share of total spending, which may reflect staffing concentration and the available information about grant readiness automatic revocation leaves an important question unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 91
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 68
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 84.9%; rating input score 85
  • Program expense ratio: 99.8%; rating input score 100

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 15%; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.95; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 72.1% per year; rating input score 100; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 28.7% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 63.6% per year; rating input score 100; 97th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 84.9% of revenue deployed · 99.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 2 filed program accomplishments · $44K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 8 of 8 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2016 to 2018
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.