The Tia Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
204159280
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2010
Location
Phoenix, AZ, USA
Phone
6026016056
Rating
69
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
International Relief

Reported finances

Revenue
$135,363
Expenses
$95,173
Assets
$114,354
Liabilities
$28

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • LAURA LIBMAN (PRESIDENT CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • LAURA LIBMAN (PRESIDENT CEO): $21,000 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To bring access to lifesaving healthcare and preventative education to the poorest remote places where there arent any doctors or medicines, and through tias self-sustaining program--teach them to fish--tia trains and equips area health workers to accomplish permanent sustainable solution in these communities.

What it reported doing in 2024

We now serve over 800,000 people and have trained 1,200 community health workers. We have begun exploring partnerships to enable us to work in el salvador and in the u.s. In native american communities. We are also developing a new strategic plan for 2025-2030 which will assist us in launching our program in the u.s. And el salvador. The new strategic plan will include a succession plan to enable our founder and ceo to retire from directing the day-to-day operations and allow us to hire a new executive director.

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 83% 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 the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 58
  • Transparency & Controls: 75
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 61
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 51%; rating input score 51
  • Program expense ratio: 72.5%; rating input score 72
  • Fundraising efficiency: $16.61 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 53; 53rd 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: 0 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Fail
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Fail
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 29.7%; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.2; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 22.1%; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -0.2% per year; rating input score 0; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.8% per year; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4.9% per year; rating input score 100; 46th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 51% of revenue deployed · 72.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 11 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $69K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $21K · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 24 of 24 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 51/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 8 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 53/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 46/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 17/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 58/100.