Dine Brands Global Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
200112865
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Pasadena, CA, USA
Phone
8182406055
Rating
60
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Emergency Assistance

Reported finances

Revenue
$247,434
Expenses
$203,359
Assets
$364,729
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Jim Darby (Board Member/President)
  • Maurice Edwards (Board Member/Vice President)
  • Melissa Hariri (Board Member/Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Susan Nelson (Board Member): $636,478 total reported compensation
  • Christie Cook (Board Member): $491,857 total reported compensation
  • Jim Darby (Board Member/President): $401,810 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The dine brands global foundation, inc. Provides financial assistance to applebee's services, inc., dine brands global, inc., and ihop, llc associates and members of their families/households who demonstrate dire need in case of a catastrophic life event, such as medical emergency, house fire, natural disaster or other hardship and provides grants to other 501(c) organizations.

What it reported doing in 2024

In 2024, dine brands global foundation, inc. Made grants of financial assistance to applebee's services, inc., dine brands global, inc., and international house of pancakes, llc associates and members of their families/households who demonstrated dire need as a result of medical emergency, fire, flood, natural disaster, or other emergency/hardship.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 79
  • Transparency & Controls: 63
  • Accountability: 9
  • Sustainability: 59
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 81.8%; rating input score 82
  • Program expense ratio: 99.5%; rating input score 99
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90%; rating input score 90; 9th 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: 95.7%; rating input score 96; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 22
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 17.8%; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.79; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 119.1%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 35.2% per year; rating input score 100; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 40.5% per year; rating input score 100; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 19.5% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 81.8% of revenue deployed · 99.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 7 board members independent · 2 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $202K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $636K · 8 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 12 of 13 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2020 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 6 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 9 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.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 56/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 1/100.