Tri-county Community Partnership Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
815475156
IRS 990 coverage
2021–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2020, Form 990-N 2018
Location
Pine Bush, NY, USA
Phone
8455510076
Rating
56
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Alcohol, Drug Abuse, Prevention Only

Reported finances

Revenue
$542,611
Expenses
$543,327
Assets
$41,147
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SAL LUCIDO (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • ALAYNE EISLOEFFEL (PROJECT COODINATOR): $55,559 total reported compensation
  • DARYN BLEACH (PEER SUPERVISOR): $46,000 total reported compensation
  • GREG METAKES (PROGRAM DIRECTOR): $43,578 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To create comprehensive, positive, long-lasting change in our community by raising awareness and providing education relating to the risks associated with underage alcohol and drug use, bringing together three counties in New York State.

What it reported doing in 2024

Hope not Handcuffs is an initiative amined at bringing law enforcement and community organizations together in an effort oto find viable treatement options for inidivduals seeking help to reduce dependency with heroin, prescription drugs and other substance. They are working with more than 79 law enforcement agencies and has helped more than 3900 participants connect to treatment

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 73% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
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

MIXED - Most voting board members are independent and program spending has grown recently. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 57
  • Transparency & Controls: 43
  • Accountability: 69
  • Sustainability: 29
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 56.5%; rating input score 56
  • Program expense ratio: 56.4%; rating input score 56
  • Fundraising efficiency: $24.61 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -0.1%; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.08; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 30.6%; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 72.7% per year; rating input score 100; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 33.3% per year; rating input score 100; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 18.4% per year; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 56.5% of revenue deployed · 56.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $306K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $56K · 7 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 21 of 22 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2021 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 8 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 56/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 56/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 35/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 4/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 7/100.