Deep Springs Corporation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
956137481
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Dyer, NV, USA
Phone
7608722000
Rating
69
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$4,503,671
Expenses
$4,091,624
Assets
$46,876,405
Liabilities
$185,473

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

Leadership & pay

17 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ANDREW ZINK (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • ANDREW ZINK (PRESIDENT): $298,279 total reported compensation
  • RYAN DERBY-TALBOT (DEAN & CFO): $113,919 total reported compensation
  • DAVID NEIDORF (DEAN): $63,325 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To provide leadership and enlightened service by bringing students into intense contact with nature, work, and ideas.

What it reported doing in 2024

Deep springs college is located on a cattle ranch and alfalfa farm in California. The college integrates academics, labor, and self-governance. It enables its twenty-six to thirty students to experience and take year-round responsibility for a largely self-sustaining community, ranch, and farm while requiring them to engage in a two-year liberal arts honors program. The college serves to educate and prepare its students for transition to four-year institutions for academic degree completion.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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.
  • 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 total spending goes to programs and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 59
  • Transparency & Controls: 70
  • Accountability: 82
  • Sustainability: 69
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 70.4%; rating input score 70
  • Program expense ratio: 57%; rating input score 57
  • Fundraising efficiency: $3.72 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 10th 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: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 56
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 9.1%; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 11.46; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 11.8%; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 4.9% per year; rating input score 100; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.9% per year; rating input score 100; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4.7% per year; rating input score 100; 33rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 70.4% of revenue deployed · 57% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 5 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $298K · 17 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 27 of 28 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 57/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 11/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 9 not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 25/100.