Fashion Delivers Charitable Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
203506135
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2013
Forms available
Form 990 2013
Location
New York, NY, USA
Phone
2122795493
Rating
84
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Emergency Assistance

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$29,215,479
Expenses
$29,637,412
Assets
$1,342,960
Liabilities
$179,330

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2013. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

32 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • GAIL GARRAMONE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • GAIL GARRAMONE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $193,750 total reported compensation
  • CARLA FATTAL (ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR): $134,679 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2013. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

See schedule othe mission of fashion delivers charitable foundation, inc. Is to mobilize the fashion community to reach out and affect the world through their donations of new products from the men's, women's and home industries. Our donations provide relief and dignity to survivors of natural disasters and others in need.

What it reported doing in 2013

People in need: domestic abuse: women in the united states experience about 4.8 million intimate partner-related physical assaults every year. Fashion delivers supports agencies and shelters that provide a safe place for survivors as they work through the trauma of domestic violence. Young women, low-income women and some minorities are disproportionately the victims of domestic violence and rape. Our donations to the abuse and recovery centers provide the women with one less burden, allowing them to focus on creating a stable, violence-free life for themselves. Major illness: treating a major illness can take a financial and emotional toll on men, women and families. Some of the agencies in our network specifically support people dealing with long term or life-threatening illness. The ronald mcdonald house in New York city houses patients and their family members during lengthy and challenging treatments. We recently provided them with family apparel for a no-cost "store" open to the residents. When agency clients receive new clothing and home fashions from us, it lifts their spirits and helps them put their energy and attention towards vital needs like treatment and family support.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 99% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and assets have declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 98
  • Transparency & Controls: 76
  • Accountability: 93
  • Sustainability: 29
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 98.9%; rating input score 99
  • Program expense ratio: 97.5%; rating input score 97
  • Fundraising efficiency: $2,497.01 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 98; 98th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.1%; rating input score 94; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 75.3%; rating input score 75; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 96.6%; rating input score 97; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: -1.4%; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.05; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.13; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 1.1%; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 30.4% per year; rating input score 100; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -14.2% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 98.9% of revenue deployed · 97.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 28 of 29 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $28.9M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $194K · 32 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $152K reported
  • Consistency: 32 of 33 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2011 to 2013
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 73 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 70 filed related-organization links
  • 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.

  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 22/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 1/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Document-retention policy not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.