Figs of Wake County Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
581474642
IRS 990 coverage
2019–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Raleigh, NC, USA
Phone
9198489024
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$414,084
Expenses
$265,633
Assets
$282,567
Liabilities
$2,849

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

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DIANE LAHTI (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • ANN C THOMAS (EXECUTIVE DI): $32,400 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Figs works with partner non-profit organizations to provide assistance to low income, uninsured or underinsured residents of wake county, nc, to purchase their essential prescription medicines and medical supplies. Figs also funds purchase of bulk generic medicines and supplies for its partners. Figs distributes over-the-counter health kits to non-profits that serve a homeless population transitioning to stable housing in wake county, nc. Figs also funds the unc school of nursing mobile health clinic twice a month in cary, nc.

What it reported doing in 2025

Figs served 5,273 indigent or medically indigent residents of wake county, nc in calendar year 2025. In 2025, figs funded voucher partners 56,031: kings ridge, alliance medical ministry, neighborup formally dorcas ministries, unc school of nursing, neighborhealth, oak city cares, first presbyterian outreach, and centro para familias hispanas. Figs funded 35,230 prescriptions, distributed 205 blood pressure monitors, and administered 287 immunizations. The urban ministries open door and walk-in clinics received 56,140 in funding for prescription medicine for their pharmacy. Unc school of nursing received 15,600 in support for the operations of their mobile health unit. Figs provided 71,169 of medical equipment, supplies and vaccines. Figs distributed 50,373 in over-the-counter medicine. Additionally, figs provided 2,150 over-the-counter portable health kits to the homeless and people transitioning from homelessness to stable housing.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 96% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 58% for direct work, and 42% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - 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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 67
  • Transparency & Controls: 94
  • Accountability: 74
  • Sustainability: 60
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 56%; rating input score 56
  • Program expense ratio: 85.7%; rating input score 86
  • Fundraising efficiency: $34.65 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 81st 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: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 35.9%; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.06; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 12.2%; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 5.5% per year; rating input score 100; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 9.3% per year; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -18.2% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 56% of revenue deployed · 85.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $228K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $32K · 13 people listed
  • Consistency: 20 of 20 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2019 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 3 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 56/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 43/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 25/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 39/100.