Deaf Organizations Fund

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
923792141
IRS 990 coverage
2023–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024, Form 990-N 2022
Location
Austin, TX, USA
Phone
8336827630
Rating
61
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Deaf/Hearing Impaired Centers

Reported finances

Revenue
$560,229
Expenses
$565,576
Assets
$1,500,425
Liabilities
$250

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Christopher Soukup (Director/President)
  • Lakshmi Ponappa (Executive Director, Deaf Organizations Fund)

Highest reported compensation

  • Christopher Soukup (Director/President): $407,847 total reported compensation
  • Anna Wilson (Director/Secretary): $207,885 total reported compensation
  • Thomas Means (Director/Treasurer): $192,310 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Deaf organizations fund (dof) believes in a future in which deaf communities have access to a wide array of services provided by thriving, well-resourced organizations. Dof strengthens organizations working with deaf communities by providing accessible grants and resources.

What it reported doing in 2024

Launched the annual Impact Grant for Deaf Organizations Fund in which we received over 80 requests totaling nearly $2M. For the 2025 grantee cohort, we distributed $100,000 in unrestricted grant dollars among four deaf-centric organizations and programs and supported them as needed with project implementation and grantee coaching. Additionally, we provided $5,400 in stipends to six grantees from the 2024 cohort. Using accessible, culturally responsive practices, DOF provided collaboration and consultant opportunities, educational webinars, technical assistance and more to other deaf-centric organizations and programs.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 68% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 67% for direct work, and 33% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and program spending has grown recently. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 54
  • Transparency & Controls: 74
  • Accountability: 47
  • Sustainability: 48
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 61%; rating input score 61
  • Program expense ratio: 57.2%; rating input score 57
  • Fundraising efficiency: $3.57 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 94.9%; rating input score 95; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 25%; rating input score 25; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: -1%; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.65; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 18.4%; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 98.5% per year; rating input score 100; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 124.3% per year; rating input score 100; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 14.6% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 61% of revenue deployed · 57.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 1 of 4 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $324K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $408K · 5 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 19 of 20 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2023 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 11 filed related-organization links
  • 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 — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 25/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 57/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 11/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 33/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 17/100.