Bay Area Furniture Bank

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
810978660
IRS 990 coverage
2018–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2015
Location
Fremont, CA, USA
Phone
5106577409
Rating
86
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Thrift Shops

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,347,112
Expenses
$1,367,900
Assets
$1,514,660
Liabilities
$87,849

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

People named in this filing

  • RICHARD GROSS (CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD)
  • BRIAN FRISS (DIRECTOR)
  • KRISTEN BADGLEY (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 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To promote dignity and stability by redirecting donated furniture to families in need.

What it reported doing in 2024

The mission of bay area furniture bank is to provide gently used, donated furniture and household goods to those who have suffered personal tragedy or disaster. Our goal is to decrease human suffering in the san francisco bay area and assist the community in need to achieve restored hope. Self-esteem and the stability to move ahead. We believe that no one shoud be forced to live, sleep, or eat on the floor. We serve veterans, homeless families with childrenl and individuals transitioning to housing, domestic violence victims, foster children aging out, refugees, victims of fire and flooding, and low income earning families. The bay area furniture bank picks up unneeded used furniture and delivers it to individuals and families moving put of homelessness or who are in need. (continued on schedule o)during the period july 1, 2024 to june 30, 2025, the bay area furniture bank delivered 8,026 pieces of furniure to 804 households. The bay area furniture bank worked with 45 social service agencies and programs to identify these households and to provide them with free furniture. Of all assisted individuals 44% of them were children.to help provide these services, the organization also received donations of the use of warehouse space and time spent by specilized volunteers. During the fiscal year, the value of these items was $632,003 and $26,572, respectively.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 73% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 59% for direct work, and 41% 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. Expenses are high relative to revenue and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 83
  • Transparency & Controls: 94
  • Accountability: 88
  • Sustainability: 44
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 84%; rating input score 84
  • Program expense ratio: 82.2%; rating input score 82
  • Fundraising efficiency: $55.13 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings

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: 100%; rating input score 100; 76th 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; 63rd 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: -1.5%; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.11; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.06; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 18.4% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 13.4% per year; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 18.4% per year; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 84% of revenue deployed · 82.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 10 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $794K reported
  • Consistency: 29 of 29 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2018 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 31/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 46/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 50/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization is recorded as not currently operating in California.