Denise Amber Lee Foundation Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 272372559
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2014–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025, Form 990-N 2013
- Location
- Englewood, FL, USA
- Phone
- 9418302035
- Rating
- 83
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Standard
- Sector
- Private Grantmaking Foundations
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $1,140,954
- Expenses
- $1,116,738
- Assets
- $326,858
- Liabilities
- $400,287
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
13 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Nathan Lee (President)
- Mark Lee (Vice President)
Highest reported compensation
- Nathan Lee (President): $124,893 total reported compensation
- Mark Lee (Vice President): $80,378 total reported compensation
- Sherrill Ornberg (Member): $1,280 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 promote and support public safety through uniform training, standardized protocols, defined measurable outcomes, and technological advances to the 9-1-1 system. To be the emotional driving force for changes in the 9-1-1 system in order to minimize human error.
What it reported doing in 2025
The Denise Amber Lee Foundation was borne out of a tragic breakdown of the 9-1-1 system in which a young wife and mother of two needlessly lost her life. the daylong abduction, rape and murder of Denise Lee exposed numerous inefficiencies in a system that all citizens rely on in their time of need. In an age of consumer technology that allows us to track and pinpoint locations with GPS on our phones, five calls to 9-1-1 that day, including a six (6) minute call from Denise herself, resulted in no location information to send a response. It is as if this reality of 9-1-1 not being able to pinpoint a location is a secret that the 9-1-1 industry doesnt want to publicize. The Denise Amber Lee Foundation is chartered with raising public awareness of this issue as well as the fact that in most locations and states around the country training is not required to be a 9-1-1 call taker or dispatcher; that the majority of 9-1-1 centers have no quality assurance practices in place for ongoing monitoring of call handeling and customer service. Most states require dog groomers to be trained and pass state exams for certification but the person taking a screaming mothers call for help needs no certification nor training. The Denise Amber Lee Foundation has recruited like-minded, passionate trainers from the 9-1-1 community to reach out to our nations 9-1-1 centers and perform full day presentations on the details of our tragedy and inspire them to not make these same mistakes. These sessions are having a powerful impact on those that attend. We are constantly receiving critiques and testimonials from attendees like this; Thank you for putting on the most profound class I have ever attended. It really motivated us to improve our training program. Thank you again for all the work you are doing to help our industry improve, Thank you for reminding me how important my job can be and how complacency can cost lives, your talk was truly inspirational. I will carry it with me for the rest of my life, and in turn hopefully ensure that I am never guilty of this. Your journey with and without Denise is an incredible one. God Bless and, This class should be required training for every dispatcher What an eye opener and very informative the Denise Amber Lee Foundation is also initiating a Quality Assurance/Quality Improvement Consulting Service to help public safety agencies install quality assurance practices in their day to day operations to reduce the indicence of human error. Oddly, the 9-1-1 industry is one of the last in this country to embrace quality assurance principals and it is arguable the most important life-saving industry. An Internal Affairs Investigation is NOT a quality assurance program. With the support of the donor community, we will continue to tell our painful story that is having a major impact on how 9-1-1 calls are handeled nationwide. 9-1-1 is a universal number for help that demands a universal level of response no matter where you are having an emergency.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Other-operating. 69% of the money available for current operations came from other operating 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
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 76
- Transparency & Controls: 100
- Accountability: 84
- Sustainability: 24
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 80.9%; rating input score 81
- Program expense ratio: 82.7%; rating input score 83
- Fundraising efficiency: $9.81 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: Limited
- Major donor itemization: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 26th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
- 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: Fail
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 2.1%; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.29; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 1.22; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 18.5%; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 16.5% per year; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 15.5% per year; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 15.8% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 80.9% of revenue deployed · 82.7% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 10 of 11 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $924K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $125K · 13 people listed
- Consistency: 25 of 25 current checks pass
- Schedules: 4 filed schedules
- Filing history: 12 filing years from 2014 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
- 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: Fundraising efficiency scored 34/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 37/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 15/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 3/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 18/100.