Dallas Tourism Public Improvement District

Legal name: Dallas Tourism Public Improvement District Corporation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
611689405
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Dallas, Texas, US
Phone
214-571-1005
Rating
51
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Business and Industry

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$25,159,301
Expenses
$20,854,532
Assets
$41,548,469
Liabilities
$1,391,005

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • FRED EULER (Executive Dir.): $62,500 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 Dallas Tourism Public Improvement District is designed to significantly increase the funding available to market and provide incentives to enhance Dallas’ performance as a convention and tourism destination.

What it reported doing in 2024

In fy25, dtpid provided funding to support 302 site visits and fams, keeping dallas a top player in worldwide destinations. Key decision-makers in corporate events, trade shows, sports, tourism, as well as members of the media and other influencers are invited to take part in site visits and familiarization tours (fams). These structured experiences include stops at many different landmarks, hotels, and restaurants, showcasing the depth and breadth of activities available for any group on its visit to dallas. 10% of dtpid's spending is dedicated to paying nonstaff travel and tour expenses to bring these decision-makers to dallas to highlight everything that makes dallas the star of the lone star state.dtpids board approved $20,000 in incentives in fy25 for the tour operator incentive program, which supports leisure tour operators who contract a minimum of 15 hotel room nights at dtpid hotels for group leisure, educational, or incentive travel only. Tour operators were eligible for a 10% incentive of the total room revenue actualized. The program was funded through dtpid's incentives & sales, and funding is subject to board approval.a portion of dtpid's funds is approved annually to support local arts and cultural events marketing. Since dtpid's inception in 2012, its event marketing fund has contributed more than $13.9 million to over 264 local arts and culture organizations, which have produced 855 events supported by this funding. In fy25, dtpid event marketing incentives significantly impacted our cultural institutions by injecting $1.7 million to benefit 87 organizations, generating an estimated 260,000+ reported hotel room nights.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 83% 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: 85
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 76
  • 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: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • 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; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: 17.1%; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.99; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0.3%; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 5.2% per year; rating input score 100; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 26.1% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 6 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments
  • Leadership: top reported pay $62K · 12 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $9.8M reported
  • Consistency: 13 of 14 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2015 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.