Django Software Foundation
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 262708549
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2016–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2018, Form 990-N 2015
- Location
- Huntersville, NC, USA
- Phone
- 9012833354
- Rating
- 74
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Mutual/Membership Benefit N.E.C.
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $296,584
- Expenses
- $277,682
- Assets
- $274,548
- Liabilities
- $51
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
7 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Chaim Kirby (President)
- Cagil Ulusahin Sonmez (Vice President)
People named in this filing
- Chaim Kirby (President)
- Cagil Ulusahin Sonmez (Vice President)
- Jacob Kaplan-Moss (Treasurer)
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
To promote, support, and advance the Django web framework.
What it reported doing in 2024
The DSF supports the DjangoGirls organization as a whole. Many of the local events that we sponsor are Django Girls events, but theDSF also sponsors the DjangoGirls organization as a whole. The organization designs the tutorials for these workshops, and also vets local groups to make sure that the local Django Girls groups that the DSF donates to are legitimate groups, rather than people impersonating a group and looking for money. For a global network, a vetting process is important to make sure the funds get to the right people to offer the best help.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 98% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 85% 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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 79
- Transparency & Controls: 68
- Accountability: 70
- Sustainability: 52
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 86.6%; rating input score 87
- Program expense ratio: 92.1%; rating input score 92
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 13th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
- Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
- Requires narrative reports: Fail
- Conducts field audits: Fail
- May suspend future funding: Fail
- Requires financial reports: Fail
- Conducts site visits: Fail
- Requires grant agreements: Fail
- May require repayment: Fail
- Grant itemization coverage: 71.8%; rating input score 72; 46th 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: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Fail
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 6.4%; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.99; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 6.2% per year; rating input score 100; 59th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 4.7% per year; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 3.9% per year; rating input score 100; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 1 operating location identified
- Where the money goes: 86.6% of revenue deployed · 92.1% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $256K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 7 people listed
- Consistency: 21 of 23 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
- Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and grants
- Filing history: 8 filing years from 2016 to 2024
- 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.
- High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 7 of 8 not reported.
- Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 53/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 40/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 59/100.