Democratic Socialists of America
Legal name: Democratic Socialists of America Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 133109557
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2012–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Jun 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- New York, NY, United States
- Phone
- 2127278610
- Rating
- 63
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Political Science
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $6,386,022
- Expenses
- $5,480,085
- Assets
- $5,122,256
- Liabilities
- $427,925
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
27 people listed
Highest reported compensation
- Glenn Rehn (Organizing Director): $135,368 total reported compensation
- Christian Noland (Finance Director Eff. 2/24): $116,458 total reported compensation
- Megan Romer (CO-CHAIR): $104,505 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Democratic Agenda began as the Democracy ’76 project. DSOC put together a labor-left coalition to fight for a real commitment to full employment at the 1976 Democratic Convention. The project, which gave headaches to Carter operatives at the nominating convention, foreshadowed the political divisions of Carter’s presidency. After the election of 1976, Democracy ’76 evolved into Democratic Agenda, which picked up active support from the leadership of such unions as the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the United Auto Workers and the Machinists, as well as from feminists, activists in communities of color and left activists in and around the Democratic Party. The h.
What it reported doing in 2024
Community action: educate the public about the causes of declining living standards in the united states and educate members how to bring people together to promote solutions.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Membership-supported. 88% of the money available for current operations came from membership dues.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 96% 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 - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. 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: 44
- Transparency & Controls: 72
- Accountability: 82
- Sustainability: 53
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 40.3%; rating input score 40
- Program expense ratio: 46.2%; rating input score 46
- Fundraising efficiency: $16.89 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 5th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 35%; rating input score 35; 14th percentile among comparable filings
- 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: Pass
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 14.2%; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.93; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.08; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 15.5%; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 21.9% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 20.9% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 22.2% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: Mission, programs, and operating context captured from the official website.
- Where the money goes: 40.3% of revenue deployed · 46.2% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 19 of 19 board members independent · 5 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 5 filed program accomplishments · $2.5M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $135K · 27 people listed
- Consistency: 29 of 30 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
- Filing history: 11 filing years from 2012 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 19 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 3 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.
- Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.
Key Signals
Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 40/100.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 46/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 35/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 54/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 35/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 18/100.