Design for Living Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
770609775
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2014–2016
Forms available
Form 990 2013, Form 990-EZ 2016
Location
Lancaster, CA, USA
Phone
8182191912
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Residential Care & Adult Day Programs

Reported finances

Revenue
$26,254
Expenses
$212,140
Assets
$38,985
Liabilities
$325,532

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • THEODORE CHARLES JR (CEO)

People named in this filing

  • THEODORE CHARLES JR (CEO)
  • ARMEN MELIKYAN (CFO)
  • NELI PLOUZIAN (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-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Provide residential and health services to poor people.

What it reported doing in 2016

Provided residential and health services to poor people.

Operating model

Revenue model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent revenue detail to tell how this nonprofit funds its work.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

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 total spending goes to programs and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 78
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 6
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 40.5%; rating input score 40

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -708%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.18; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 8.35; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 18.9%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -19.4% per year; rating input score 0; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -65.1% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -58.4% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 40.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $86K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 7 of 7 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2014 to 2016
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 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.

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 — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 40/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 2/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 15/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 1/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 8/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.
  • Review — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization could not be resolved against the register, so the check is unfinished.