Dallas Fort Worth Minority Supplier Development Council
Legal name: Dallas Fort Worth Minority Supplier Development Council Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 751522447
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2012–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Dallas, Texas, USA
- Phone
- 214.630.0747
- Rating
- 71
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $2,495,578
- Expenses
- $2,225,703
- Assets
- $2,332,967
- Liabilities
- $1,026,846
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
26 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Margo J Posey (President)
Highest reported compensation
- Margo J Posey (President): $206,014 total reported compensation
- Andrew D Nash (Director of Operations): $123,652 total reported compensation
- Edwin Cruz (Certification Manager): $52,760 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 mission of the Dallas/Fort Worth Minority Supplier Development Council is to grow under-resourced, under-financed, and under-scaled businesses by providing capacity-building support, improving access to capital, and creating strategic connections with corporations, public sector and buying entity partners to foster sustainable growth and strengthen supply chain resilience.
What it reported doing in 2024
The Dallas/Fort Worth Minority Supplier Development Coucil, Inc produces a Business Expo annually called ACCESS. The Expo is designed to help the Council in fulfilling its mission of encouraging and facilitating procurement and business opportunities between Buying-Entities corporations and public sector agencies and the certified minority business enterprises. Over 1,804 attended the two-day event.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- 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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 71
- Transparency & Controls: 55
- Accountability: 95
- Sustainability: 46
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 73%; rating input score 73
- Program expense ratio: 81.6%; rating input score 82
- Fundraising efficiency: $8.08 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 5th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Missing
- 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: 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: 10.8%; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.05; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.44; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 17.2%; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 7.5% per year; rating input score 100; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 6.1% per year; rating input score 100; 49th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 8% per year; rating input score 100; 50th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 4 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
- Where the money goes: 73% of revenue deployed · 81.6% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 24 of 24 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.8M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $206K · 26 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 20 of 21 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes executive pay
- Filing history: 11 filing years from 2012 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 3 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.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 31/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 39/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 15/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 24/100.