Workforce Development Corporation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
133632018
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
New York, NY, USA
Phone
2126188733
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Education N.E.C.

Reported finances

Revenue
$11,637,955
Expenses
$11,394,949
Assets
$16,897,371
Liabilities
$13,153,280

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

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Brandan Collins (Executive Director TTP)
  • Chenelle Dennis (Executive Director)
  • Abby Jo Sigal (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Brandan Collins (Executive Director TTP): $155,596 total reported compensation
  • Priscilla Kwak (Managing Dir Strategic Initiatives): $145,223 total reported compensation
  • Chenelle Dennis (Executive Director): $141,657 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Promote workforce development and job creation through activities specifically designed to create skilled workforce in the City of New York.

What it reported doing in 2024

Workforce Training Programs: Workforce training programs include Employer-based training, Food and Beverage Industry partnership, Sector based training, Cannabis OJT, Media and Entertainment training, Manufacturing Industry Partnership, and Tech Industry partnerships - Through major funding source from EDC, the Organization helped connect New Yorkers to sector-based occupational skills training and internship opportunities, and then to full-time jobs. In addition, the organization helped businesses increase their competitiveness by providing skills training for their workers, which also yielded higher wages and transferrable skills for the workers.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 95% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 40% for direct work, and 60% for 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 few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 88
  • Transparency & Controls: 66
  • Accountability: 44
  • Sustainability: 41
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 97.9%; rating input score 98
  • Program expense ratio: 99.9%; rating input score 100
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 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: 88.8%; rating input score 89; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 12.5%; rating input score 12; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 2.1%; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.48; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.78; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 7.2%; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 4.9% per year; rating input score 100; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2.9% per year; rating input score 100; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -0.7% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 97.9% of revenue deployed · 99.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 1 of 8 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 6 filed program accomplishments · $11.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $156K · 16 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 26 of 27 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2014 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 54 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 48 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 12/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 43/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Form 990 shared with the board not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 51/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 14/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 35/100.