NYS Sickle Cell Advocacy Network Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
113373180
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2012–2019
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2019, Form 990-N 2007
Location
Queens Village, NY, USA
Phone
7187120873
Rating
45
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Centers to Support the Independence of Specific Populations

Reported finances

Revenue
$31,748
Expenses
$43,676
Assets
$15,448
Liabilities
$15,448

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2019. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

1 person listed

People named in this filing

  • GLORIA ROCESTER (Director)

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 2019. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Education and support

What it reported doing in 2019

Sickle cell education and awareness

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up. 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: 21
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 21
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 22.8%; rating input score 23
  • Program expense ratio: 16.6%; rating input score 17

Transparency & Controls

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

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -37.6%; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.35; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 1; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -9.4% per year; rating input score 0; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -6.8% per year; rating input score 0; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 18% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 22.8% of revenue deployed · 16.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $7K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 1 people listed
  • Consistency: 6 of 7 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2012 to 2019
  • 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 23/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 17/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part I part ii net assets crosscheck did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 16/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 22/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 6/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.