Birds for Sofia Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
872182454
IRS 990 coverage
2022–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-N 2021
Location
Salt Lake City, UT, USA
Phone
3852755470
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Fund Raising and/or Fund Distribution

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$722,882
Expenses
$955,635
Assets
$507,659
Liabilities
$54,526

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

People named in this filing

  • Sage Hancock (Executive Dir.)
  • Nataliya Miller (Director)
  • Dr James Brewer (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 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Birds for Sofia supports children diagnosed with rare, inheritable diseases from Eastern Europe. We help families with children with rare diseases access medical care, genetic testing, rehabilitation, and equipment not covered by insurance. Since the war in Ukraine, we helped to re-establish medical care and access to housing during medical treatment for a number of Ukrainian families in the USA, who were confirmed through "Uniting for Ukraine" parolees.

What it reported doing in 2025

SMA Program - Our Spinal Muscular Atrophy Program targets cases where treatment cannot be covered by insurance or governmental support, and the need for urgent medical equipment, treatment or crucial rehabilitation courses is demonstrated. In 2025, we expanded the programs scope to include surgical cases requiring urgent intervention. These may involve spinal stabilization, orthopedic corrections, neurological, or gastrointestinal surgeries that are time-sensitive and can significantly enhance mobility, reduce pain, or prevent life-threatening complications that can arise as the disease progresses.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 88% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

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 the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 98
  • Transparency & Controls: 77
  • Accountability: 47
  • Sustainability: 23
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 97.5%; rating input score 97
  • Fundraising efficiency: $351.6 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Pass
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 50%; rating input score 50; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 43
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: -32.2%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.53; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.11; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 5% per year; rating input score 100; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 40.1% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 60% per year; rating input score 100; 96th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 97.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 6 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 6 filed program accomplishments · $932K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 25 of 26 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2022 to 2025
  • 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.

  • Review — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 50/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 6 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 4/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 26/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 34/100.