American Danish Business Council Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
043612142
IRS 990 coverage
2024–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2023
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
2028123353
Rating
47
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$210,264
Expenses
$164,409
Assets
$324,191
Liabilities
$31,000

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

People named in this filing

  • Carson Billingsly (Director)
  • Jseper Mller Srensen (Chairman)
  • Jean-Paul George (Director)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

To improve Danish and American business relationships and be a source of information for companies and organizations with Danish and American ties.

What it reported doing in 2024

In FY24, the ADBC hosted a wide range of events, including large-scale receptions, formal roundtable discussions, and targeted networking events. Notable receptions included the Constitution Day event and the Christmas Reception. These events provided ADBC members with opportunities to engage and network with a broad group of stakeholders, including Members of Congress, representatives of the U.S. administration, participants from the private sector, and policy experts from think tanks. In addition, the ADBC organized smaller, exclusive roundtable discussions designed to facilitate in-depth and structured dialogue. These sessions enabled members to participate in formal discussions with sector-specific experts, such as officials from the administration, representatives from think tanks, and business leaders, fostering a productive exchange of knowledge and insights. All ADBC events were held in the Washington, D.C. area. On average, the ADBC hosted approximately 1520 events annually.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 98% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

MIXED - 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 a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 64
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 21.8%; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.97; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.1; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 4.6% per year; rating input score 100; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 9.8% per year; rating input score 100; 65th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 9 of 10 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 59/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 27/100.