Pink Aid Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
471031835
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Westport, CT, USA
Phone
2036827465
Rating
83
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Fund Raising and Fund Distribution

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,187,352
Expenses
$2,958,557
Assets
$3,783,523
Liabilities
$584,061

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

Leadership & pay

25 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SUSAN BYER (CO-TREASURER, PAST PRESIDENT CT)
  • MICHELE CORENMAN (BOARD DIRECTOR, PAST PRESIDENT CT)
  • AMY KATZ (CHAIRMAN, PAST PRESIDENT CT, CO-FOUNDER)
  • JEAN LEPORE (DIRECTOR, PAST CT PRESIDENT)
  • ANDREW MITCHELL-NAMDAR (DIRECTOR, PAST PRESIDENT CT, CO-FOUNDER)
  • ROSANNE CAVALLARO (CO-PRESIDENT, LI)

People named in this filing

  • SUSAN BYER (CO-TREASURER, PAST PRESIDENT CT)
  • MICHELE CORENMAN (BOARD DIRECTOR, PAST PRESIDENT CT)
  • WENDY SCHAEFER (CO-TREASURER)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

Pink aid's mission is to help undeserved breast cancer patients survive treatment with support and dignity, to provide screening and financial assistance to those in need, and to empower breast cancer survivors to heal by helping and inspiring others.

What it reported doing in 2024

The organization's activities include 1)allocating grants to hospitals and other organizations formed under 501(c)(3) that support breast cancer patients and survivors in need of diagnostic testing, recovery garments, post-surgical support, wigs, crisis counseling and wellness programs; 2)making individual grants on behalf of breast cancer patients currently in treatment who need financial assistance with essential household expenses such as rent, utilities, transportation and food; 3)providing information and education to survivors about breast cancer through its website and educational forums.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 93% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 92% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 79
  • Transparency & Controls: 88
  • Accountability: 88
  • Sustainability: 56
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 80.9%; rating input score 81
  • Program expense ratio: 86.1%; rating input score 86
  • Fundraising efficiency: $15.31 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 99%; rating input score 99; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 71
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: 7.2%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.28; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.15; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 12.3% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 15.6% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 21% per year; rating input score 100; 85th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 80.9% of revenue deployed · 86.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 25 of 25 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 25 people listed
  • Consistency: 26 of 27 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2014 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 36 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 36 filed related-organization links
  • 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.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 51/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 56/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 46/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 50/100.