Dearworldorg Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
464910102
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2015
Location
Salt Lake City, UT, USA
Rating
62
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Commemorative Events

Reported finances

Revenue
$9,872
Expenses
$16,151
Assets
$242,500
Liabilities
$98

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

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ROBERT FOGARTY (President)

People named in this filing

  • ROBERT FOGARTY (President)
  • DAVE FORTIER (VP)
  • JANE SCHAWARTZENBERG (Treasurer)

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

We create stories that educate and promote understanding across cultures regardless of religion, race, or language. We accomplish this by telling the stories of people across the globe in photo, video, and audio format believing that everyone has a story worth telling.

What it reported doing in 2025

Dear World continued its mission of using storytelling to build empathy. The organization coordinated a local art program with Mary Beths Hotel, working with area artists and community members to develop and install original work reflecting neighborhood identity. This collaboration extended Dear Worlds methodology into a hospitality setting, engaging guests and residents with locally rooted narratives. Additionally, the organization began conceptual development of the Dear World Foundation book to document stories collected through its Brain Tattoo Method and portrait process, preserving personal narratives for public education.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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 - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of total spending goes to programs and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 59
  • Transparency & Controls: 78
  • Accountability: 64
  • Sustainability: 43
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 78.2%; rating input score 78
  • Program expense ratio: 47.8%; rating input score 48
  • 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: Limited
  • 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: 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: -63.6%; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 15.01; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -12.4% per year; rating input score 0; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -15.9% per year; rating input score 0; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -1.5% per year; rating input score 0; 30th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 78.2% of revenue deployed · 47.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 3 board members independent · 1 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $4K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 14 of 16 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2016 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 48/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 23/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 30/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 58/100.