Dartmouth Class of 1983

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
043391621
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2019–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2022, Form 990-EZ 2024, Form 990-N 2021
Location
Hanover, NH, USA
Phone
7326908380
Rating
50
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$32,813
Expenses
$19,815
Assets
$103,744
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

19 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Martha Gerhan (Co-President)
  • Walter Foster (Co-President)
  • Shelley Drake Hawks (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • Martha Gerhan (Co-President)
  • Walter Foster (Co-President)
  • Shelley Drake Hawks (Vice President)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

The purpose of the Dartmouth Class of 1983 is to develop a strong and enduring Class structure in order to further the interests, welfare and educational purposes of Dartmouth College.

What it reported doing in 2024

Distribution of funds to Dartmouth College in support of its educational purposes. Grants include the folllowing: Dartmouth Partners in Community Service - $4,000; First Year Student Enrichment Program - $4,000 and the Class of 1983 Scholarship Fund - $4,000.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 87% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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 revenue comfortably covers expenses. 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: 20
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 81
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 16.1%; rating input score 16
  • Program expense ratio: 26.7%; rating input score 27

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 39.6%; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 5.24; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -44.1% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.3% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 10.6% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 16.1% of revenue deployed · 26.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 2 filed program accomplishments · $5K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 19 people listed
  • Consistency: 8 of 9 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2019 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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 16/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 27/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part III transfer expenses within program total did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.