Digital Organizing Power-building and Engagement Labs (Dope Labs)

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
900777307
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Findlay, OH, USA
Phone
5102903667
Rating
67
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Management & Technical Assistance

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$582,068
Expenses
$472,656
Assets
$408,214
Liabilities
$667,700

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

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ANTWI AKOM (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • ANTWI AKOM (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $150,000 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Builds power and self-determination by centering community voice and reimagining design innovation with the world's most vulnerable populations (bipoc, disabled, rural, lgbqtia, etc.

What it reported doing in 2024

During the duration of this project, dope labs provided ongoing project management and community engagement support for the streetwyze safety mapping initiative in partnership with roots community health center. Activities included recruitment and training support for 10 community leaders, facilitation of streetwyze trainings, development of mapping prompts and outreach materials, ongoing technical assistance for use of the streetwyze platform, support for community-based data collection and quality assurance, participation in community events, and analysis and reporting on community safety data collected through the project in sobrante park and surrounding neighborhoods. 10 community leaders were trained to use the streetwyze platform and each engaged at least 3 additional community members in participatory mapping activities focused on neighborhood safety, civic engagement, and community-driven solutions. Participants collected and shared community stories, expanded outreach through peer recruitment, and supported broader resident engagement in data collection efforts.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 95% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
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 - 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 program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 51
  • Transparency & Controls: 86
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 48
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 53.1%; rating input score 53
  • Program expense ratio: 65.4%; rating input score 65
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • 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: 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 18.8%; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.86; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 1.64; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 31.7%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -10.8% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -10.6% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -0.4% per year; rating input score 0; 16th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 53.1% of revenue deployed · 65.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 4 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 6 filed program accomplishments · $309K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $150K · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 27 of 28 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2012 to 2024
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 53/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 38/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 3/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 6/100.