Mothers for Others Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 814585971
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2024–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2024, Form 990-N 2023
- Location
- Greenwich, CT, USA
- Phone
- 2035134255
- Rating
- 82
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Emergency Assistance
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $91,000
- Expenses
- $79,969
- Assets
- $54,416
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
1 person listed
People named in this filing
- Karen Giannuzzi (Founder)
Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Mothers for Others supports the well-being of low and limited income families by providing diapers for children from birth to three years old. It is the largest independent diaper bank in Fairfield County.
What it reported doing in 2024
Mothers for Others was founded in 2011 by a group of mothers in Greenwich, Connecticut to collect gently-used baby equipment for local families in need. Since transitioning to operate solely as a diaper bank, the volunteer organization has dramatically increased its impact, distributing nearly 500,000 diapers in 2024 compared to 15,000 in the first year. The organization has now distributed over 1,250,000 diapers to families in need and earned the distinction as largest independent diaper bank in Fairfield County.
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
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown and reported officer compensation is a large share of total spending, which may reflect staffing concentration.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 92
- Transparency & Controls: 82
- Sustainability: 56
- Growth: NotEnoughData
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 87%; rating input score 87
- Program expense ratio: 99%; rating input score 99
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 12.1%; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.68; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: Limited
- Asset growth: Limited
Details
- Where the money goes: 87% of revenue deployed · 99% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $79K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 1 people listed
- Consistency: 9 of 9 current checks pass
- Schedules: 2 filed schedules
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
- 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.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 36/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.