Nysarc Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 135678837
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2014–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Latham, NY, USA
- Phone
- 5184398311
- Rating
- 71
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Developmentally Disabled Centers
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $10,003,778
- Expenses
- $9,684,390
- Assets
- $30,249,670
- Liabilities
- $18,437,681
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
91 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- DR JOHN KOWALCZYK (IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT)
- WALTER HOGAN (VICE PRESIDENT, CENTRAL REGION)
- JOE MAGLIOCCA (ASSISTANT VICE PRESIDENT, CAPITAL-HUDSON VALLEY-AD)
- JOHN SMITH (ASSISTANT VICE PRESIDENT, METRO REGION)
- DANIEL MARTINDALE (PRESIDENT)
- STEVEN MASKET (VICE PRESIDENT, METRO REGION)
Highest reported compensation
- ERIK GEIZER (CEO): $386,349 total reported compensation
- KATHRYN JERIAN (CHIEF STRATEGY OFFICER): $273,857 total reported compensation
- CYNTHIA BOROZNY (CFO): $272,449 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To improve the quality of life for persons with developmental disabilities in every manner possible.
What it reported doing in 2024
Nysarc offers a full range of trust services, administration of pooled trusts, as well as first- and third-party individual trusts, all of which are designed to meet the needs of people with any type of disability. All qualify as supplemental needs trusts. A supplemental needs trust is a way to set aside funds to enhance the quality of life of an individual with special needs without risking that person's benefits under various government programs.
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.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. Program spending has declined or grown slowly and expenses are high relative to revenue.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 54
- Transparency & Controls: 84
- Accountability: 95
- Sustainability: 48
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 60%; rating input score 60
- Program expense ratio: 61.6%; rating input score 62
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 14th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
- Compensation committee: Pass
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Pass
- Compensation survey or study: Pass
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: Pass
- Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 3.2%; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.12; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.61; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 19.2%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -0.7% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 1.1% per year; rating input score 100; 13th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 11.5% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 60% of revenue deployed · 61.6% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 38 of 38 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $6M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $386K · 91 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $262K reported
- Consistency: 30 of 31 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 11 filing years from 2014 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 9 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
- 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.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 47/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Form 990 shared with the board not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 4/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 22/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.