Dress for Success Salt Lake City

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
474922073
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2015–2016
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2016
Location
Draper, UT, USA
Rating
81
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Employment Procurement Assistance

Reported finances

Revenue
$70,361
Expenses
$37,822
Assets
$33,561

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

People named in this filing

  • ANGELA THOMAS (CHAIR/PRESID)
  • RONALD PHILLIPS (TREASURER)
  • JULIE HARMAN (SECRETARY)

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

The mission of dress for success is to empower women to achieve economic independence by providing a network of support, professional attire and the development tools to help women thrive in work and in life.

What it reported doing in 2016

The number of clients served was 42. Made referral partnerships with several organizations that work with women-in-need to help them find employment. Held two funraising events will all food, space and materials being donated. First event raised 915 with an attendance of 30. The second even was a national dress for success event which had an attendance of 136. A total of 120,000 was raised,, with 30,504 going to dress for success, salt lake city.

Operating model

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

STRONG - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of total spending goes to programs. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 71
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Sustainability: 57
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 53.8%; rating input score 54
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100

Transparency & Controls

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

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 46.2%; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.89; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 36.2%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 194.3% per year; rating input score 100; 100th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 188.2% per year; rating input score 100; 100th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 53.8% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $38K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 6 of 6 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2015 to 2016
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 54/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 44/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 5/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.