Abortion Dialogue Academy

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
471123056
IRS 990 coverage
2024–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2023, Form 990-N 2021
Location
Omaha, NE, USA
Phone
4802410437
Rating
67
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Hot Line, Crisis Intervention Services

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$284,655
Expenses
$229,087
Assets
$135,906
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Katherine Burow (Executive Director)
  • Amos Long (President)
  • Jacob Burow (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Katherine Burow (Executive Director): $60,000 total reported compensation
  • Connie Boesch (Program Coordinator): $59,257 total reported compensation
  • Ethan Casher (Program Coordinator): $22,018 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 organization promotes education and conversations regarding abortion and the pro-life stance by presenting to various groups, training college volunteers to have conversations with their peers on campus and providing other educational opportunities.

What it reported doing in 2024

Train volunteers on college campuses to dialogue with their peers regarding abortion and the pro-life stance using a modeled presentation. The goal is for the volunteers to have 1,000 total conversations during a school year. The total amount of expenses allocated to this program is estimated given that salaried staff manage the multiple programs for the organization.

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 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: 58
  • Transparency & Controls: 74
  • Accountability: 82
  • Sustainability: 52
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 55.8%; rating input score 56
  • Program expense ratio: 69.4%; rating input score 69
  • Fundraising efficiency: $9.24 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • 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: 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: 5 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 56
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 19.5%; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.59; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 73.7%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 28.5% per year; rating input score 100; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 36% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 55.8% of revenue deployed · 69.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 4 board members independent · 5 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $159K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $60K · 9 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 42 of 42 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 8 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 56/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 37/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 28/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 1/100.