Dixon Elementary School Pto

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
391973704
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Brookfield, WI, USA
Rating
64
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Parent/Teacher Group

Reported finances

Revenue
$82,535
Expenses
$62,590
Assets
$107,080
Liabilities
$3,755

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

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CAREY DREES (CO-PRESIDENT)
  • SARA MONTY (CO-PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • CAREY DREES (CO-PRESIDENT)
  • JULIE HARGRAVES (TREASURER)
  • JEN KOCH (COMMITTEES)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

The purpose of the dixon elementary school parent teacher organization (pto) is to provide a framework of collaborative support among the school's parents, teachers and staff through volunteer efforts, to enhance the educational and social opportunities among the dixon population. Recent examples of such efforts include: sponsoring thematic programs for staff throughout the school sponsoring of empty soup bowls (school wide event to raise funds for local homeless shelter) sponsorship of dixon's innovative garden purchase of games and equipment for student use in music and physical education class annual goals are determined at the conclusion of the previous school year. Fundraising efforts are used to help meet these goals, as well as needs that arise throughout the school year.

What it reported doing in 2024

Support for dixon elementary school through the purchase of various classroom supplies and equipment in addition to sponsoring grade level fieldtrips and a math night for parents and students.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 51% for direct work, and 49% for 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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 72
  • Transparency & Controls: 87
  • Accountability: 6
  • Sustainability: 54
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 72.5%; rating input score 72
  • Program expense ratio: 95.5%; rating input score 95
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 94.2%; rating input score 94; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 1 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 14
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 24.2%; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.71; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.04; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 9.2% per year; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 9.1% per year; rating input score 100; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 12.5% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 72.5% of revenue deployed · 95.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 7 board members independent · 1 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $60K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 7 people listed
  • Consistency: 20 of 21 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 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.

Key Signals

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

  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 6 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 32/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 23/100.