Daisy Foundation
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 912009739
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2021–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025, Form 990-N 2021
- Location
- Anacortes, WA, USA
- Phone
- 4155952557
- Rating
- 52
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Health Support Services
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $5,099,412
- Expenses
- $4,630,453
- Assets
- $6,021,366
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
4 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Deborah Zimmermann (CEO)
Highest reported compensation
- Deborah Zimmermann (CEO): $400,000 total reported compensation
- Bonnie Barnes (Chairperson of the Board): $135,000 total reported compensation
- Melissa Barnes (VP Operations): $110,000 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The DAISY Foundations mission is entirely as an advocate for excellence in Nursing and Midwifery. The Foundation runs a Nursing Awards Program that is used in over 5,700 Hospitals Medical Facilities and Schools of Nursing around the World to recognize and reward Nurses who provide excellence in Patient Care. Additionally the Foundation provides various Nursing Research Grants to individual Nurses and Hospitals.
What it reported doing in 2025
The DAISY Awards are now given to Nurses in over 7,000 Hospitals and Schools of Nursing in 47 Countries around the World. Over 2.1 Million Nurses have been nominated for the DAISY Award by patients and patient Families. The DAISY Award has become a global leader in Nursing reward and recognition.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- 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 - Program spending has grown recently. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 49
- Transparency & Controls: 43
- Accountability: 57
- Sustainability: 52
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 53.1%; rating input score 53
- Program expense ratio: 58.5%; rating input score 58
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 72.7%; rating input score 73; 0th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
- Compensation committee: Pass
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Pass
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Missing
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 0%; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 66.7%; rating input score 67; 13th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 4 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 44
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: Pass
- Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 9.2%; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.3; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 96; 96th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 16%; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 77.5% per year; rating input score 100; 98th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 11.5% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 9.8% per year; rating input score 100; 57th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 53.1% of revenue deployed · 58.5% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 10 of 15 board members independent · 4 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $2.7M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $400K · 4 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 37 of 41 current checks pass · 4 findings to review
- Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
- Filing history: 5 filing years from 2021 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 4 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.
- 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.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 53/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 58/100.
- Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 8 not reported.
- Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 54/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 43/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 21/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX GrantsToDomesticIndividuals column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.