West Side Center for Community Life

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
710908184
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
New York, NY, USA
Phone
2123623662
Rating
84
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Youth Development Programs

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$12,472,800
Expenses
$13,069,851
Assets
$22,407,308
Liabilities
$13,721,360

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

Leadership & pay

35 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • GREGORY SILVERMAN (CEO/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • GREGORY SILVERMAN (CEO/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $341,738 total reported compensation
  • ALYSON ROSENTHAL (CHIEF PROGRAM OFFICER): $214,571 total reported compensation
  • JOHN LEBRETON (CHIEF FINANCIAL & PEOPLE O): $205,539 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 pursue anti-hunger initiatives through the west side campaign against hunger (wscah) program whose mission is to alleviate hunger by ensuring that all new yorkers have access with dignity to a choice of healthy food and supportive services.

What it reported doing in 2024

Food access program: wscah's food access program includes our food distribution efforts and sourcing operations at our 86th street and 549 w 180th street locations in manhattan, as well as food distributions in partnership with other community-based organizations throughout New York city. Wscah distributed 5.3 million pounds of fresh, nutritious food, including 2.8 million pounds of fresh produce. All distributions are free of charge to our community members.in addition, wscah is the coordinating partner and fiscal sponsor for the roundtable: allies for food access, a dedicated network of emergency food providers collaborating to bring more resources to communities. The roundtable is deepening strategic collaboration around purchasing healthy foods, including bulk orders, capacity building, and advocating for changes to food and funding systems at the city and state levels.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 47% for direct work, and 53% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 81
  • Transparency & Controls: 83
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 31
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 88.5%; rating input score 89
  • Program expense ratio: 84.3%; rating input score 84
  • Fundraising efficiency: $7.07 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd 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; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -4.8%; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.71; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.61; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 7.4%; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 14.4% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 13.8% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 23.5% per year; rating input score 100; 92nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 88.5% of revenue deployed · 84.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 30 of 30 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $11M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $342K · 35 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 3 contractors listed · $452K reported
  • Consistency: 37 of 37 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2012 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • 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: Fundraising efficiency scored 29/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 17/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 56/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 22/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 33/100.