The Green Chair Project

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
272323103
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-N 2010
Location
Raleigh, NC, USA
Phone
9193220474
Rating
80
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Human Services N.E.C.

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$4,889,281
Expenses
$4,874,203
Assets
$5,432,776
Liabilities
$1,134,375

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

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • RAE MARIE CZUHAI (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • RAE MARIE CZUHAI (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $153,973 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To reuse donated household furnishings to renew lives of participants referred from area programs who are recovering after homelessness, crisis or disaster.

What it reported doing in 2025

Agency support - the green chair project serves not only individuals and families, but also other non-profit organizations working to better our community. Non-profit partners can obtain needed furnishings for their program space from the green chair project at a very discounted cost. In addition, non-profits can spend up to 10 hours a week accepting, processing, storing and placing furniture donations they receive from supporters. The green chair project relieves the "furniture donation" burden from its partner agencies by providing a centralized resource where donations can be accepted and participants can obtain needed furnishings, while relieving the agencies' administrative demands. This allows the agencies to more efficiently serve their clients in their concentration areas.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 72% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 69% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 77
  • Transparency & Controls: 75
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 36
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 80.8%; rating input score 81
  • Program expense ratio: 81%; rating input score 81
  • Fundraising efficiency: $12.55 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: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 75th 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: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 0.3%; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.11; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.21; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 3.2%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 11.9% per year; rating input score 100; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 12.3% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 13.9% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 80.8% of revenue deployed · 81% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 15 of 15 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $3.9M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $154K · 16 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 33 of 33 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2011 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 44/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 28/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 37/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 34/100.