Danish Club of Washington D C

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
526058665
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Rockville, MD, USA
Phone
3018038229
Rating
65
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$90,664
Expenses
$68,858
Assets
$354,486
Liabilities
$18,601

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

People named in this filing

  • Poul M Pedersen (Chairman of the Board of Directors)
  • Elsebeth Hillard (Vice Chair Board of Directors)
  • Claus Nielsen (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 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The Danish Club was formed in 1931 for the purpose of preserving and fostering Danish traditions and culture. The mission is cultural educational fraternal charitable; and to promote fellowship with Danes persons of Danish ancestry and anyone interested in Danish culture history subjects events; and to provide a meeting place for its members.

What it reported doing in 2025

- Club and House operations - All management and most labor for the continuing operation of the Club and the house in which meetings are held is performed by members of the Club. There are no Club employees. Professionals are contracted when expertise is necessary or time demands. Directors Officers and other members of the Club provide donate their time and labor to carry out most of the functions required. The Club publishes a newsletter for the members which is distributed by postal mail or e-mail at the members choice. A web-site is maintained for the benefit of the members and also provides information to others about the mission of the Club. The Club gathers information on other Danish and Scandinavian organizations and distributes such to its members. The Club through its membership provides a network that is available to assist members in time of need or want. Revenue that supports the Club and house is provided from membership dues Bazaar profits investment income and rental of a portion of the house to a rooming tenant. The active Club membership at the end of the accounting year was 228 persons.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 93% of the money available for current operations came from other operating 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

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. The filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 70
  • Transparency & Controls: 53
  • Accountability: 64
  • Sustainability: 59
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 70%; rating input score 70
  • Program expense ratio: 92.2%; rating input score 92
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 81.8%; rating input score 82; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 0%; rating input score 0; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 1 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 14
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • 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: 24.1%; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 5.15; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.05; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 5.6% per year; rating input score 100; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 20.4% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 2.2% per year; rating input score 100; 49th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 70% of revenue deployed · 92.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 1 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $64K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 9 people listed
  • Consistency: 38 of 41 current checks pass · 3 findings to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2020 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 6 not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 53/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX GrantsToDomesticOrgs column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 17/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 58/100.