Dkg International Educators Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
746066228
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2021
Location
Austin, TX, USA
Phone
5124785748
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$481,767
Expenses
$563,934
Assets
$7,104,127
Liabilities
$16,113

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • NITA R SCOTT (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR/SECRETARY)
  • DR BEVERLY HALL-MAUGHAN (INTERNATIONAL PRESIDENT)
  • DR DEBBIE LEBLANC (INTL FIRST VICE PRESIDENT)
  • LUCINDA HART (NEW EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR/SECRETARY)

Highest reported compensation

  • NITA R SCOTT (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR/SECRETARY): $103,518 total reported compensation
  • LUCINDA HART (NEW EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR/SECRETARY): $65,287 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 dkg international educators foundation supports effective educational projects, the educational and charitable activities of the delta kappa gamma society international, and professional growth of educators worldwide.

What it reported doing in 2024

11 other projects $10,000 or less each to carry out study & research, to assist & cooperate with schools, colleges, universities, and other persons, organizations, trust funds, or foundations in the support, encouragement, and improvement of education

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 81
  • Transparency & Controls: 72
  • Accountability: 74
  • Sustainability: 45
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 94.7%; rating input score 95
  • Program expense ratio: 77.4%; rating input score 77
  • Fundraising efficiency: $4.39 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 22nd 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: 93.5%; rating input score 93; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -17.1%; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 12.6; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 2%; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 6.5% per year; rating input score 100; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 13.3% per year; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 10.2% per year; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 94.7% of revenue deployed · 77.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 11 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 6 filed program accomplishments · $436K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $104K · 12 people listed
  • Consistency: 23 of 24 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and grants
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2012 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 7 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 19/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 16/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 35/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 54/100.