BIFMA International

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
382019327
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Grand Rapids, MI, USA
Phone
6162853963
Rating
40
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,266,142
Expenses
$2,184,125
Assets
$3,015,672
Liabilities
$239,581

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

Leadership & pay

20 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Deirdre Jimenez (President & CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • Deirdre Jimenez (President & CEO): $270,356 total reported compensation
  • Jennifer Wammack (Director of Outreach): $160,946 total reported compensation
  • Anthony Serge (Director of Safety and Performance): $154,042 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

BIFMA Internationals mission is to lead, educate, inform and develop standards for the North American office and institutional furniture industry.

What it reported doing in 2024

Health, Sustainability, Safety and Performance - BIFMA is an accredited standards writing organization for commercial furniture testing standards in the US. 1. Revisions to a number of standards: Seating, Desks, Storage/panels 2. Published the revision for the e3Furniture Sustainability Standard 3. Reaffirmed Lounge Furniture Standard 4. Published the new Ergonomics Standard

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 87% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 60
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 44
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • 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: 3.6%; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.38; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.08; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 38.4%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 3.7% per year; rating input score 100; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4.9% per year; rating input score 100; 34th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 15 of 15 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments
  • Leadership: top reported pay $270K · 20 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 13 of 30 current checks pass · 17 findings to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 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: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 46/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 49/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Advertising column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX AllOtherExpenses column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX CompCurrentOfficersDirectors column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX ConferencesMeetings column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX FeesForServicesAccounting column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX FeesForServicesLegal column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX FeesForServicesLobbying column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX FeesForServicesOther column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX InformationTechnology column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Insurance column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Occupancy column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX OfficeExpenses column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX OtherEmployeeBenefits column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX OtherSalariesAndWages column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX PayrollTaxes column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Travel column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 3/100.