The Tiny Miracles Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
412125069
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Darien, CT, USA
Phone
2032029714
Rating
66
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Health Support Services

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$716,940
Expenses
$699,296
Assets
$1,125,871
Liabilities
$385,424

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

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ASHLEY DINEEN (PRESIDENT)
  • ALYSSA KENT (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • CHRISTINA TISON (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • CHRISTINA TISON (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $147,500 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Dedicated to helping families of premature infants in fairfield and new haven counties, Connecticut by providing support.

What it reported doing in 2025

Operate a network of local parent mentors who themselves have endured the premature birth of a child to provide support, inspiration and encouragement. This includes establishing parent resource rooms in the local hospitals to comfort parents and provide internet access, educational materials, sibling support and toys, nutritional support and the ability to meet with weekly parent mentors. Services also include after the nicu events and support programs, a parent hotline, parent matching program, hospital support groups, a support website, bereavement support referrals, spanish language interpreter and a monthly professional speaker series. All programs are offered in spanish and english.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 98% 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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 63
  • Transparency & Controls: 62
  • Accountability: 76
  • Sustainability: 39
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 67.8%; rating input score 68
  • Program expense ratio: 68.8%; rating input score 69
  • Fundraising efficiency: $6.24 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 88.2%; rating input score 88; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 0%; rating input score 0; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • 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: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • 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: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 2.5%; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.61; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.34; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 21.1%; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 6.6% per year; rating input score 100; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6.6% per year; rating input score 100; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 10% per year; rating input score 100; 55th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 67.8% of revenue deployed · 68.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 14 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $481K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $148K · 15 people listed
  • Consistency: 29 of 31 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 15 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 21/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 38/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 58/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 15/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 17/100.