Patients Rights Action Fund Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
462164386
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
New York, NY, USA
Phone
6097590322
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Right to Die, Euthanasia

Reported finances

Revenue
$861,425
Expenses
$834,120
Assets
$58,301
Liabilities
$18,472

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MATTHEW P VALLIERE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR/PRESIDE)

Highest reported compensation

  • MATTHEW P VALLIERE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR/PRESIDE): $158,611 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The mission of patients' rights action fund, inc. Is to provide financial & strategic support throughout the u.s. To protect the rights of patients, persons with disabilities, the poor & marginalized by opposing the legalization of assisted suicide.

What it reported doing in 2024

The patients' rights action fund provides financial and strategic support throughout the u.s. To protect the rights of patients and people with disabilities by opposing assisted suicide public policy. Praf is the national coordinated movement to oppose efforts to make suicide a medical treatment and to promote measures that protect patients civil rights. Praf connects new and existing grassroots organizations to build coalitions that oppose assisted suicide public policy on the state level. The organization tracks and follows legalization efforts across multiple states, and provides resources to strategic opposition efforts.

Operating model

Revenue model
Affiliate-supported. 88% of the money available for current operations came from contributions from related organizations.
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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 64
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 27
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 65%; rating input score 65
  • Program expense ratio: 67.2%; rating input score 67
  • Fundraising efficiency: $15.85 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: 3.2%; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.07; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.32; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 19%; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 8% per year; rating input score 100; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 9.3% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.1% per year; rating input score 100; 39th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 65% of revenue deployed · 67.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $560K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $159K · 9 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 24 of 24 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2014 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 52/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 4/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 45/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Document-retention policy not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 16/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 24/100.