Dri International Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
431526946
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
New York, NY, USA
Phone
8665423744
Rating
54
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Chambers of Commerce & Business Leagues

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$5,666,173
Expenses
$4,622,851
Assets
$6,518,572
Liabilities
$2,009,182

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

Leadership & pay

17 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • BUFFY J LEACH (DIR OF COMM): $163,092 total reported compensation
  • ROBERTO ZEGARRA (DIRECTOR OF EDUCAT): $160,562 total reported compensation
  • INGRID SHIEH (DIR OF MARKETING): $154,360 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To create a common body of knowledge for the disaster recovery/contingency/businesscontinuity planning field, to certify qualified individuals based on their provenknowledge, and promote the credibility and professionalism of those certified.

What it reported doing in 2024

Courses are administered and certifications granted to ensure the maintenance of high professional standards within the industry. Courses conducted in business continuity/disaster planning throughout the u.s. And abroad via independent international affiliates. Courses are offered at various locations throughout the calendar year. Written examinations are conducted to support the granting of certifcation of those individuals demonstrating proficient skills. Four certifications are offered: associate business continuity planner; certified business continuity professional; certified functional continuity professional; and, master business continuity professional.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 95% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
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 - Most voting board members are independent and program spending has grown recently. 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: 29
  • Transparency & Controls: 55
  • Accountability: 91
  • Sustainability: 55
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 30.5%; rating input score 31
  • Program expense ratio: 33.6%; rating input score 34
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 81.8%; rating input score 82; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 18.4%; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.41; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.31; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 17.2%; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 3.2% per year; rating input score 100; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5.2% per year; rating input score 100; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 15.6% per year; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 30.5% of revenue deployed · 33.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 13 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.6M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $163K · 17 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $138K reported
  • Consistency: 32 of 33 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2012 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 16 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

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

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 31/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 34/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 49/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grants require schedule f did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 15/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 33/100.