Rochester Refugee Resettlement Services Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 453047057
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2012–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2015
- Location
- Rochester, NY, USA
- Phone
- 5857325803
- Rating
- 87
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Ethnic, Immigrant Centers
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $1,545,611
- Expenses
- $1,517,562
- Assets
- $2,774,198
- Liabilities
- $2,518,520
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
16 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Michael Coniff (CEO)
- Djifa Kothor (Executive Director)
Highest reported compensation
- Djifa Kothor (Executive Director): $76,045 total reported compensation
- Michael Coniff (CEO): $7,800 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Provide housing and temporary labor to refugees as they transition to self sufficiency. Teach refugees computer training and driving training.
What it reported doing in 2024
Mental Health: The RRRS mental health team neared completion of its 3 year contract with the funder: Greater Rochester Health Foundation. The team has completed its research and experience with multiple cultures to determine that PTSD is a common experience for refugees once they have completed their adjustment to living in a new country. PTSD causes some refugees to never develop a comfort level in their new country. Primary resettlement agencies that actually bring people into the country are contracted to work with families for only 90 days, which means that RRRS as landlord takes over from there. Our extensive work through this experience has shown us that the American mental health system is in most cases inadequate for refugees from many diverse cultures. (Continued on Schedule O).As we finish this funded program we have resolved to develop a mental health program using successful techniques developed in home countries. These techniques will be delivered by leaders/respected members of the larger ethnic groups who have also been in the US for many years and can "bridge" the gap between American medical support and native ethnic cultural norms.
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
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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 81
- Transparency & Controls: 94
- Accountability: 95
- Sustainability: 44
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 92.8%; rating input score 93
- Program expense ratio: 88.7%; rating input score 89
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 19th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- 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: 1.8%; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.83; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.91; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 5.5%; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 15.9% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 17.3% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 18.7% per year; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 92.8% of revenue deployed · 88.7% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 14 of 14 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $1.3M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $76K · 16 people listed
- Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $122K reported
- Consistency: 27 of 28 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
- Filing history: 11 filing years from 2012 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
- 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.
Key Signals
Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 41/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Document-retention policy not reported.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 7/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 52/100.