Dress for Success San Francisco

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
203905776
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
San Francisco, CA, USA
Phone
4153620034
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Women's Rights

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,836,237
Expenses
$2,059,155
Assets
$469,925
Liabilities
$376,314

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

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Jill Unikel (President)
  • Roxanne Joe (President-Elect)
  • Kira Dales (Vice President)
  • Erin Badillo (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Erin Badillo (Executive Director): $170,884 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Dress for success san francisco/san jose empowers women to achieve economic independence by providing a network of support, professional attire, and development tools to help them thrive in work and in life.

What it reported doing in 2025

In 2025, 510 women participated in virtual workshops and training sessions focused on financial literacy, digital skills, and professional development. Our Financial Education program produced measurable outcomes: 100% of participants opened and maintained savings accounts, 87% established emergency funds, 67% improved their credit scores, and 25% reduced their debt by more than $500. Our new AI Foundations course prepared clients for emerging workforce demands. Our Professional Women's Group engaged 134 employed clients in peer mentorship and leadership development focused on employment retention and advancement. See Schedule O for remaining response. Clients who completed cohort programs experienced an average income increase of 191% within one year. A total of 465 volunteers contributed 4,711 hours valued at $163,000 to enable our programming.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 81% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 49% for direct work, and 51% for 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. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 79
  • Transparency & Controls: 70
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 14
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 89.1%; rating input score 89
  • Program expense ratio: 79.4%; rating input score 79
  • Fundraising efficiency: $7.21 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 88.2%; rating input score 88; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 99.2%; rating input score 99; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -12.1%; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.23; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.8; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 8.3%; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 11.2% per year; rating input score 100; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 10.3% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -4.6% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 89.1% of revenue deployed · 79.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 14 of 14 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $1.6M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $171K · 15 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 32 of 34 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2014 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 25/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 11/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 12/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 7/100.
  • 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.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 42/100.