Dallas Christian School

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
751004860
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Mesquite, TX, United States
Phone
(972) 270-5495
Rating
80
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Elementary, Secondary Education, K - 12
Affiliation
Christianity

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$14,012,405
Expenses
$12,516,685
Assets
$14,751,361
Liabilities
$2,188,111

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

Leadership & pay

17 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Chris King (President/Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Chris King (President/Vice President): $337,244 total reported compensation
  • Harry T Seabourn (Director of Technology): $176,393 total reported compensation
  • Greg Losher (VP Operations): $145,310 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

DCS is a college preparatory school committed to biblical values where students are prepared for Christ-centered lives of purpose, service, and leadership. Dallas Christian School invests in the essential elements of our mission and ministry to nurture and challenge each student to be fully committed to the glory of God. Your gift to the True Blue Annual Fund helps provide an exceptional academic experience in a Christ-centered environment. Why should I give to DC's Annual Fund? The True Blue Annual Fund provides the opportunity for Dallas Christian School to grow in areas that directly impact our students. Your gift will foster new initiatives and programs for students and faculty.

What it reported doing in 2024

Private christian education for approximately 551 students in preschool, elementary and secondary education.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 87% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 65% for direct work, and 35% for grants.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 76
  • Transparency & Controls: 91
  • Accountability: 73
  • Sustainability: 58
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 74.3%; rating input score 74
  • Program expense ratio: 83.8%; rating input score 84
  • Fundraising efficiency: $23.01 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 5 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 83
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 61.5%; rating input score 62; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 10.7%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.18; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.15; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5.9%; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 5.6% per year; rating input score 100; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2.8% per year; rating input score 100; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 1.9% per year; rating input score 100; 17th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 2 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 74.3% of revenue deployed · 83.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 13 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $10.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $337K · 17 people listed · 5 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 3 contractors listed · $904K reported
  • Consistency: 28 of 28 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 10 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 7 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 42/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 44/100.