Western New York Advocacy for the Developmentally Disabled Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 161355935
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2012–2014
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2014
- Location
- Rochester, NY, USA
- Phone
- 5852247204
- Rating
- 88
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Developmentally Disabled Centers
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $128,302
- Expenses
- $105,407
- Assets
- $41,717
- Liabilities
- $41,717
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
8 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- ROGER NELLIST (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR THRU 10/1/14)
- COLIN GARWOOD (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
People named in this filing
- BRUCE BETTIS (MEMBER)
- PATTY BEAUDRIE (MEMBER)
- SUE MUSTARD (MEMBER)
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 2014. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The organization empowers individuals with disabilities and their families to advocate for themselves and realize their personal goals. Together we build strong, inclusive communities by increasing the ability of community members to support and value all individuals.
What it reported doing in 2014
Protection and advocacy program - provides information, materials, referrals, and technical assistance to persons with disabilities and their families.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 80% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- 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. Program spending has declined or grown slowly and revenue has declined or grown slowly.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 89
- Transparency & Controls: 100
- Sustainability: 49
- Growth: 20
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 82.2%; rating input score 82
- Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 17.8%; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.4; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 1; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 26.8%; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -10.9% per year; rating input score 0; 16th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -0.6% per year; rating input score 0; 28th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 43.8% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 82.2% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $105K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 8 people listed
- Consistency: 8 of 8 current checks pass
- Schedules: 3 filed schedules
- Filing history: 3 filing years from 2012 to 2014
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
- 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: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 34/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 7/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 15/100.