Poetry in Review Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
237453274
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2009–2013
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2013
Location
New York, NY, USA
Phone
2123623492
Rating
90
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Printing, Publishing

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$106,992
Expenses
$104,261
Assets
$109,554
Liabilities
$2,196

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2013. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • HERB LEIBOWITZ (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • HERB LEIBOWITZ (PRESIDENT)
  • BEN DOWNING (DIRECTOR)
  • SUSAN YANKOWITZ (VICE PRES)

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 2013. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Publication and distribution of parnassus: "poetry in review" a poetry scholarly publication whose purpose is to expand and extend the appreciation of poetry.

What it reported doing in 2013

Funds were expended for the publication and distribution of "parnassus: poetry in review" a poetry scholarly publication whose purpose is to expand and extend the appreciation of poetry and for other related activities and events.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 91% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 72% for direct work, and 28% for grants.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and reported officer compensation is a large share of total spending, which may reflect staffing concentration.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 86
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Sustainability: 48
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 84.7%; rating input score 85
  • Program expense ratio: 86.8%; rating input score 87

Transparency & Controls

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

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 2.6%; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.05; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 32%; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 0.5% per year; rating input score 100; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 10.5% per year; rating input score 100; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 22.6% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 84.7% of revenue deployed · 86.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 2 filed program accomplishments · $90K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 7 people listed
  • Consistency: 8 of 8 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2009 to 2013
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 45/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 11/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 54/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.