Dixiearizona Strip Interpretive Association

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
870536320
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2020
Forms available
Form 990 2020
Location
St George, UT, USA
Phone
4356736167
Rating
50
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Environmental Education and Outdoor Survival Programs

Reported finances

Revenue
$46,425
Expenses
$28,469
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • STEVEN BROUGH (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • KENNETH L SIZEMORE (EXECUTIVE DI): $12,716 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Dixie Arizona strip interpretive association (dasia) was a 501(c) 3 nonprofit corporation formed in 1994 primarily to enhance the understanding of the Arizona strip and southern Utah region, its history and natural resources. As a formal cooperating association, dasia partnered with bureau of land management, national park service and usda forest service offices to provide interpretation, education, and customer service-related materials for area visitors while assisting, where possible, with project funding. Dasia operates sales and information outreach facilities at an interagency information center in st. George, ut and the pine valley, ut heritage center. These activities allowed dasia to accomplish its motto of "connecting people and public lands" unfortunately, covid-19 restrictions combined with other financial struggles, forced dasia to cease operations on june 30, 2020.

What it reported doing in 2020

Grant and cooperative agreement l16ac00031 with bureau of land management enabled dasia to assist the bureau of land management's Arizona strip district office and st. George field office in providing public information, education, interpretation and outreach services focused on aiding public land users understand and help accomplish the objectives of applicable resource management plans and national landscape conservation system unit objectives. The onset of covid-19 restrictions, combined with an internal blm review at the end of agreement l16ac00031, resulted in a decision by the blm to not invite submittions for a new agreement. As a result, dasia ceased operations on june 30, 2020.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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

MIXED - 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: 27
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Accountability: 63
  • Sustainability: 41
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 21.7%; rating input score 22
  • Program expense ratio: 42.7%; rating input score 43
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 16th 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 38.7%; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 44.7%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -12.6% per year; rating input score 0; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -2.6% per year; rating input score 0; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -12.1% per year; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 21.7% of revenue deployed · 42.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 1 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $12K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $13K · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 18 of 19 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2010 to 2020
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 22/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 43/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 2/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 8/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.