Daring Girls

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
841549841
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Denver, CO, USA
Phone
3033514928
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Fund Raising and/or Fund Distribution

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$512,908
Expenses
$446,312
Assets
$802,554
Liabilities
$12,513

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

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MICHAEL EBER (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • JESSICA LOVE (EXECUTIVE DI): $108,759 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

We partner locally in africa to ensure that girls have the knowledge, tools, mentorship and support to confidently design their own futures.

What it reported doing in 2025

Daring girls supports the implementation of two mentoring programs. Kisa project is a two-year leadership course led locally in tanzania by glami. The program prepares girls in their last two years of secondary school to attend university and create positive social change in their communities. Binti shupavu is a four-year life skills course led locally in tanzania by glami for lower secondary school girls covering topics such as study skills, personal leadership, health, and self-confidence. It is tailored to address key challenges that lead to hundreds of thousands of vulnerable girls dropping out of secondary school each year, with the goal of increasing their graduation rates. Daring girls was historically the primary funding source for glami in implementing both programs, but long- term grantors now mainly provide funding directly to glami, underscoring the strength of this programming and how it is managed by local leadership.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 92% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 44% for direct work, and 56% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - 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 the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 56
  • Transparency & Controls: 75
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 55
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 58.2%; rating input score 58
  • Program expense ratio: 65.7%; rating input score 66
  • Fundraising efficiency: $5.88 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 0 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Fail
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Fail
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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: 13%; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.8; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 24.4%; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 2.9% per year; rating input score 100; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.9% per year; rating input score 100; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 10.3% per year; rating input score 100; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 58.2% of revenue deployed · 65.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $293K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $109K · 13 people listed
  • Consistency: 33 of 33 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 58/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 8 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 19/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 12/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 56/100.