Staten Island Federation of Parent Teacher Associations

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
133255838
IRS 990 coverage
2019–2019
Forms available
Form 990 2019, Form 990-EZ 2018, Form 990-N 2014
Location
Staten Island, NY, USA
Phone
7183563247
Rating
64
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Parent/Teacher Group

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$21,351
Expenses
$23,410
Assets
$19,982
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2019. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Aaron Bogad (President)

People named in this filing

  • Pam Cupo (Parliamentarian)
  • Aaron Bogad (President)
  • Steven McCrimmon (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 2019. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To provide support to public school parents and students in grammer school and high school in Staten Island.

What it reported doing in 2019

Scholarship - Seventeen scholarships (16 for $1,000 and 1 for $2,000) for scholastic improvement for 8th graders. Winners are chosen by a committee. One of the Scholarships was for Art, one for Special Education, and fifteen other scholastic awards were for their Essays. Maria Sowan (MS Schools) $2,000Yasin Hanif (Concord HS) $1,000Yara Alhusari (CSI HS) $1,000Syeda Manahil (Curtis HS) $1,000Anthony Newsome (Greak Kills HS) $1,000Tia Beyruti (Hungerford HS) $1,000Joselyn Marsh (McCowan HS) $1,000Onija Itodo (McKee HS) $1,000Gianna Collo (New Dorp HS) $1,000Reyam Ghannoum (Petrides HS) $1,000Gabrielle Ryan (Port Richmond HS) $1,000Jade Abbriano (South Richmond HS) $1,000Michelle Ma (Staten Island Tech HS) $1,000Krista Perdomo (Tottenville HS) $1,000Faniel Wronski (Wagner HS) $1,000Julia Ladis (Special Ed Tottenville HS) $1,000Zuting Chen (Staten Island Tech HS) $1,000(Art Winner)Total Scholarships $18,000

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 85% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 85
  • Transparency & Controls: 86
  • Accountability: 0
  • Sustainability: 44
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 99.2%; rating input score 99
  • Program expense ratio: 90.5%; rating input score 91
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90%; rating input score 90; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 0 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Fail
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -9.6%; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.85; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 0.7% per year; rating input score 100; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -3.5% per year; rating input score 0; 28th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 99.2% of revenue deployed · 90.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 7 board members independent · 0 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $21K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 7 people listed
  • Consistency: 14 of 15 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes grants
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 47/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 22/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.