Seniors Helping Seniors Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
133111915
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2024–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2012, Form 990-EZ 2024, Form 990-N 2013
Location
New York, NY, USA
Phone
2125439383
Rating
84
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Voluntarism Promotion

Reported finances

Revenue
$60,694
Expenses
$60,694
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Teofilo Santiago (President)
  • Muhammed Azizullah (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • Teofilo Santiago (President)
  • Muhammed Azizullah (Vice President)
  • Maria Luna (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-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Seniors Helping Seniors has a rich history of promoting community engagement and well-being through organized activities for seniors, such as rides to the doctor or pharmacy, and providing information about medicare. Our project aims to further this mission by strengthening our existing activities in New York City, such as, Dementia and Alhzeimers care. The project's primary objective includes helping seniors especially with health and wellness concerns.

What it reported doing in 2024

NYC Council #10-DELA ROSA $5,000 Metzger-Foundation $2,000 Neighborhood Fund $3,000

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 84% 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. Revenue has declined or grown slowly and assets have declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 100
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 28
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 0%; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: -4.2% per year; rating input score 0; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -9.1% per year; rating input score 0; 18th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 2 filed program accomplishments · $61K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 7 people listed
  • Consistency: 9 of 9 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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 — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 2/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 45/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.