Model Alliance Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
471601890
IRS 990 coverage
2021–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2020, Form 990-N 2018
Location
New York, NY, USA
Phone
6463216038
Rating
65
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Alliance/Advocacy Organizations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$417,077
Expenses
$371,457
Assets
$333,258
Liabilities
$15,317

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SARA ZIFF (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • SARA ZIFF (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $143,500 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Through strategic research, policy initiatives, and campaigns, the model alliance aims to promote fair treatment, equal opportunity, and more sustainable practices in the fashion industry, from the runway to the factory floor.

What it reported doing in 2024

Through our secure support line, the model alliance assisted 272 people who work or aspire to work in the fashion industry with a range of concerns, including exploitative contracts, wage theft, and sexual abuse. When appropriate, we connected individuals with trusted journalists to help them tell their stories and made referrals to attorneys to explore their legal options. We championed and implemented the New York state fashion workers act, our signature legislation, held awareness-raising events and published an in-depth explainer to help models understand their newfound rights and how to exercise them. At eight speaking engagements, from a convening at the united nations to a panel conversation at the ford foundation, we educated our community and the general public about our efforts to create a fairer and more accountable fashion industry. We conducted research examining the impact of artificial intelligence on fashion workers in partnership with the worker institute at cornell university and data & society, and raised awareness for our community's concerns about the growing use of ai-generated models in major media outlets, including the New York times, business of fashion, and the guardian. We developed leadership in members of our community by providing opportunities for our worker council to engage in public speaking, pen essays and op-eds, undergo media training, organize their peers for a rally or event, and more. We provided worker leaders with honoraria and travel stipends to make participation in our efforts accessible.

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

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 43
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 77
  • Sustainability: 45
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 43.1%; rating input score 43
  • Program expense ratio: 48.4%; rating input score 48
  • Fundraising efficiency: $6.15 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 27; 27th 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: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 87.5%; rating input score 88; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • 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: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 10.9%; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.9; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.05; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 38.6%; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -6.2% per year; rating input score 0; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 26.8% per year; rating input score 100; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 41.4% per year; rating input score 100; 95th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 43.1% of revenue deployed · 48.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 8 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $180K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $144K · 9 people listed
  • Consistency: 27 of 27 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2021 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 43/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 48/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 27/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 38/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 7/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 33/100.