The Sarah Daft Home

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
870213532
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Woods Cross, UT, USA
Phone
8013974050
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,673,243
Expenses
$1,775,327
Assets
$1,109,067
Liabilities
$204,993

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

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • BRADLEY J MIKESELL (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • PAUL OGILVIE (DIRECTOR): $86,459 total reported compensation
  • BRADLEY J MIKESELL (President): $84,875 total reported compensation
  • ALAN KRIS WIDDISON (BOARD MEMBER): $4,000 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The sarah daft home provides high-quality, affordable, assisted living services for the aged and disabled.

What it reported doing in 2024

The sarah daft home (the organization") was incorporated in 1911 and is a 501 (c) (3) organization. The sarah daft home provides high-quality, affordable, assisted living services. Sarah ann daft set aside money "to provide a fund for the establishment and maintenance of a home, in salt lake city, Utah for the aged, infirm and blind of both sexes, to be known as the dafthome." the home was established for "purely benevolent and charitable purposes, and not for pecuniary profit." it was the first such facility in Utah, and one of the first in the nation. Aid is provided 24-hours a day in such areas as: medication assistance, meal preparation, transportation to medical appointments, housekeeping, laundry, personal grooming, wellness checks, daily activities, etc.

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 most voting board members are independent. 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: 57
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 86
  • Sustainability: 58
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 53.5%; rating input score 54
  • Program expense ratio: 80.9%; rating input score 81
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

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: Limited
  • 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 9 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 33.6%; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.62; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.18; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5.6%; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 3.9% per year; rating input score 100; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8% per year; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -2% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 53.5% of revenue deployed · 80.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $86K · 7 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $444K reported
  • Consistency: 28 of 28 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2012 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 7 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 7 filed related-organization links
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 54/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 23/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 46/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 49/100.