Furnishing Dignity

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
472214017
IRS 990 coverage
2017–2020
Forms available
Form 990 2020, Form 990-EZ 2016, Form 990-N 2015
Location
Phoenix, AZ, USA
Phone
4803403417
Rating
80
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Housing Support

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$459,698
Expenses
$335,309
Assets
$237,856
Liabilities
$1,726

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • TAMARA SILVA (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • ROBERT BURGHART (PRESIDENT)
  • NINA TARGOVNIK (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • TAMARA SILVA (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $44,738 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Our vision is everyone should have the comforts of a home. We accomplish this with local nonprofits working with foster youths, aging out of care, and families and individuals transitioning from homelessness and shelters to a place of their own and self-sufficiency.

What it reported doing in 2020

Furnishing dignity was able to serve 143 households and 355 individuals for 2020. The impact of this was indeed significant as most of these families or adults had few if any personal possessions to speak of - only items that they had been able to carry while homeless. In 2020 furnishing dignity was able to continue to provide complete household furniture during the covid pandemic from beds and tables to cutlery and dish sets, our program helps to restore dignity by creating comfortable and functional home environments for those on their pathway to stability and self- reliance. All of those served through this project were economically disadvantaged, often living at or below the federal poverty level, and ready to transition out of shelter or foster care into their own homes. Each of the households served were financially vetted to ensure our home furnishings were placed in homes that had a consistent and steady monthly income, either through employment and/or benefits.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 79% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 50% for direct work, and 50% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

STRONG - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 66
  • Transparency & Controls: 94
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 54
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 59.6%; rating input score 60
  • Program expense ratio: 81.7%; rating input score 82
  • Fundraising efficiency: $14.63 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 79th 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 27.1%; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.71; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 13.3%; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 10.8% per year; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 24.5% per year; rating input score 100; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 28.3% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 59.6% of revenue deployed · 81.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $274K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $45K · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 32 of 32 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2017 to 2020
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 44/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 26/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 31/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 58/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.