WNY STEM Hub Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
471958752
IRS 990 coverage
2019–2022
Forms available
Form 990 2022, Form 990-EZ 2018, Form 990-N 2016
Location
Buffalo, NY, USA
Phone
7162896315
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Alliance/Advocacy Organizations

Reported finances

Revenue
$51,584
Expenses
$188,517
Assets
$20,542
Liabilities
$2,859

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2022. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JOSEPH ZAWICKI (President)

People named in this filing

  • JOSEPH ZAWICKI (President)
  • MICHAEL JABOT (Director)
  • LETITIA THOMAS (Director)

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 2022. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The mission of wny stem hub is to engage learners across western New York to cultivate a love of stem learning and curiosity about stem careers by mobilizing key community partners in developing transformational programs that initiate a lifelong

What it reported doing in 2022

Hand in hand - students learn grade-level science and math with a hands-on experience designing pediatric adaptive hand devices, anatomy, adaptive-use devices (for youth and adults missing a limb), 3d design techniques, building prototypes, coding, and testing design components. A group of high school students are trained as project team leaders (ptl) and learn digital literacy, technical skills, project leadership, communication, teamwork, and peer mentorship in preparation for the role of ptl. They then act as ptl student leaders for the two-week immersive hand in hand program for students grades 7-10. Each student leader is assigned a team of three participants to mentor and guide during the hand in hand summer project. The students work in teams with project leaders to design an innovative idea for an adaptive device, create a prototype, test it, and then fabricate it. Additionally, students

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. A relatively small share of total spending goes to programs and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 66
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 88
  • Sustainability: 18
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 31.8%; rating input score 32
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 71
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -265.5%; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.11; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.14; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -19.7% per year; rating input score 0; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -16.1% per year; rating input score 0; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -7.2% per year; rating input score 0; 17th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 31.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $60K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 21 of 21 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2019 to 2022
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 32/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 14/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 8/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 17/100.