Detention Watch Network
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 833874583
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2019–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025, Form 990-N 2018
- Location
- Washington, DC, USA
- Phone
- 2023019350
- Rating
- 74
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Ethnic, Immigrant Centers
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $3,094,402
- Expenses
- $3,333,776
- Assets
- $7,017,345
- Liabilities
- $186,877
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
15 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Danielle Alvarado (Board President)
- Emily Tucker (Vice President)
- Silky Shah (Executive Director)
Highest reported compensation
- Silky Shah (Executive Director): $167,125 total reported compensation
- Aimee Nichols (Managing Director): $141,436 total reported compensation
- Beom Sun Suh (Program Director): $126,873 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Detention Watch Network seeks to end the cruel system of immigration detention via programs of grassroots organizing, strategic communications, and collective advocacy.
What it reported doing in 2025
Detention Watch Network imagines a world where every individual lives and moves freely and a society in which racial equity is the norm and immigration is not criminalized. The abolition of immigration detention is part and parcel of struggles against racism, xenophobia, discriminatory policing, and mass incarceration and our aims coincide with these broader struggles against racialized oppression.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 90% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 75% for direct work, and 25% for grants.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 73
- Transparency & Controls: 68
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 32
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 79%; rating input score 79
- Program expense ratio: 71.9%; rating input score 72
- Fundraising efficiency: $13.95 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 18th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Missing
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 96.4%; rating input score 96; 37th 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: 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: -7.7%; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.1; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 24.1%; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 18.3% per year; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -7% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 4.6% per year; rating input score 100; 30th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 79% of revenue deployed · 71.9% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2.4M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $167K · 15 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 32 of 33 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 7 filing years from 2019 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 31 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 24 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.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 47/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 12/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 59/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 11/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.