Project Lyme
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 811138289
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2017–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2021
- Location
- New York, NY, USA
- Phone
- 2073709313
- Rating
- 76
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Specifically Named Diseases
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $546,084
- Expenses
- $5,051,695
- Assets
- $907,936
- Liabilities
- $249
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
12 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- NOAH JOHNSTON (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- NOAH JOHNSTON (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $120,000 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Project lyme's mission is to eradicate the epidemic of lyme disease and other tick-borne illnesses by spreading awareness, providing educational resources, funding peer-reviewed research, and supporting advocacy for solutions to end the suffering. Since 2016, project lyme has challenged misinformation about diagnosis and treatment, advocated for patients' rights, and built a community for lyme patients as well as their loved ones.
What it reported doing in 2024
Education and awareness - education, awareness, and advocacy are project lyme's three largest initiatives from an employment and public engagement standpoint. These funds are split between funding the distribution of documentary film the quiet epidemic, creating social media and website content for @projectlyme and projectlyme.org, creating and distributing public service announcements, as well as sponsoring online and in-person educational seminars and advocacy events. We distributed $45,000 to the quiet epidemic, $5,250 to international lyme and associated diseases (ilads), $4,997 to drtalks, $1,338 to Illinois lyme association, $1,000 to integrated pest management (ipm) lyme light foundation, $500 to ilads and other minor grants to organizations working in education and awareness.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 98% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 45% for direct work, and 55% for grants.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. A relatively small share of total spending goes to programs and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 61
- Transparency & Controls: 89
- Accountability: 95
- Sustainability: 19
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
- Program expense ratio: 11.2%; rating input score 11
- Fundraising efficiency: $4.66 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 95.8%; rating input score 96; 43rd 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; 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: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Fail
- 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: -825.1%; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.18; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 2.4%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 13.5% per year; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 6.8% per year; rating input score 100; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 17.1% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 11.2% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $566K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $120K · 12 people listed
- Consistency: 29 of 30 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
- Filing history: 8 filing years from 2017 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 2 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.
Key Signals
Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 11/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 16/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 8/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: CEO compensation review process not reported.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 58/100.