Safer DIY Spaces Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
815217454
IRS 990 coverage
2018–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2019
Location
Oakland, CA, USA
Phone
5104994952
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Fund Raising and/or Fund Distribution

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$103,777
Expenses
$59,160
Assets
$161,586
Liabilities
$28,836

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

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Ayse Sercan (President)
  • Sinuba Dreem (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Sarah Lockhart (Exec. Director): $16,680 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Safer DIY Spaces provides free technical guidance, construction supplies and labor, and legal support to low-income tenants and artists living and/or working in non-code compliant buildings. Our goals are life-safety improvements and compassionate code enforcement

What it reported doing in 2024

This year, we actively preserved 52,000 square feet of affordable space for arts and community programming, including affordable live/work space for 40 artists in Oakland and San Francisco. We subsidized emergency repairs and professional fees, advised on life safety hazards and abatement, consulted on navigating code enforcement challenges, and performed due diligence work. Our members also participated in consortia about arts real estate acquisitions and artist housing in California, and provided technical guidance on impactful policy changes at local and state levels.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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 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: 63
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 66
  • Sustainability: 65
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 47.7%; rating input score 48
  • Program expense ratio: 83.7%; rating input score 84
  • Fundraising efficiency: $38.84 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 72; 72nd 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: 85.7%; rating input score 86; 23rd 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: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 43%; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.73; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.18; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 28.2%; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -14.6% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -7.8% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 22.5% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 47.7% of revenue deployed · 83.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 7 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $49K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $17K · 7 people listed
  • Consistency: 24 of 24 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2018 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 48/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 12/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 21/100.