Doitfor Achievement Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
824570909
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2019–2019
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2019
Location
Smithtown, NY, USA
Rating confidence
Limited
Sector
Mutual/Membership Benefit N.E.C.

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$-186,058
Expenses
$8,948
Assets
$0

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2019. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

2 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CHAD STARK (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • CHAD STARK (PRESIDENT)
  • ELLEN FISHER (SECRETARY/TR)

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 2019. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

1. To encourage continuing and advanced education for practicing interior designers 2. To develop better business methods and a best practices standard to be used by practicing interior designers and to implement this standard using educational programming and promotional campaigns to foster better business practices and improve business conditions within the design industry; 3. To educate potential consumers regarding the benefits of hiring an interior designer for both residential and commercial interior design related projects, and to encourage the publics use of interior designers services to strengthen and benefit the entire industry; 4. To promote excellence in the practice of interior design generally; and 5. To do any other act or thing incidental to or connected with the foregoing purposes or in advancement thereof, but not for the pecuniary profit or financial gain of its members, directors, or officers, except as permitted under the not-for-profit corporation law.

What it reported doing in 2019

Raise funds to develop accredited courses which will improve interior designer business practices and sustain their business viability.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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

- The available evidence is not sufficient to produce an overall rating for this filing. This is not a warning sign.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: NotEnoughData
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 10
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: Limited
  • Program expense ratio: Limited

Transparency & Controls

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

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -104.8%; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 2 people listed
  • Consistency: 4 of 4 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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 — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 7/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 2/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.