Deep Foundations Institute

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
222145952
IRS 990 coverage
2017–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Hawthorne, NJ, USA
Phone
9734234030
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$4,768,709
Expenses
$4,550,240
Assets
$4,441,950
Liabilities
$1,505,837

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

Leadership & pay

22 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JAMES JOHNSON (PRESIDENT)
  • J ERIK LOEHR (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • GIANFRANCO DI CICCO (IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT)
  • THERESA ENGLER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • THERESA ENGLER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $235,137 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To bring together multi-disciplined individuals and organizations tofind common ground and create a shared vision and concensus voice for continual advancement in the deep foundations industry. Dfi's mission is accomplised through technical committees, educational programs andconferences, publication of guides and specifications, a peer-reviewedjournal, a flagship magazine, research, government relations and outreach.

What it reported doing in 2025

Program service related expenses include annual meetings, specialworkshops, and research for the education and development of coursesfor the membership and engineers who are responsible for building anddevelopment of deep foundations for highrise buildings and specialconstruction projects throughout the world.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 97% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Expenses are high relative to revenue and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 64
  • Transparency & Controls: 66
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 39
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 69.9%; rating input score 70
  • Program expense ratio: 74.6%; rating input score 75
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 4.6%; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.98; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.34; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5.2%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 5.4% per year; rating input score 100; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.7% per year; rating input score 100; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 1.1% per year; rating input score 100; 14th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 69.9% of revenue deployed · 74.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 21 of 21 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $3.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $235K · 22 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 26 of 26 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2017 to 2025
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 42/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 33/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 24/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.