Driving Force Group Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 454641567
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2015–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2014
- Location
- Rockville, MD, USA
- Phone
- 2072725705
- Rating
- 71
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Community Foundations
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $1,466,277
- Expenses
- $1,657,915
- Assets
- $818,247
- Liabilities
- $318,070
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
3 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Jennifer Goldstock Wright (CEO)
- George Nemphos (President)
Highest reported compensation
- Jennifer Goldstock Wright (CEO): $275,000 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Driving Force Group (DFG) is dedicated to providing the infrastructure and resources to create sustainable social impact Through fiscal sponsorship and compliance support, we ensure the philanthropic projects have the financial and operational foundation needed to create lasting social impact.
What it reported doing in 2024
Dameology+: Dameology+ was started by Damian Jones to improve access to STEM education and create community engagement opportunities for underserved middle and high school students in the Baton Rouge community. Damian provides innovative and impactful resources and opportunities to ensure young people in Baton Rouge are on a path to upward mobility.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 66% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 98% 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. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 68
- Transparency & Controls: 73
- Accountability: 81
- Sustainability: 18
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 74.8%; rating input score 75
- Program expense ratio: 69.1%; rating input score 69
- Fundraising efficiency: $8.56 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 86.7%; rating input score 87; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
- Written employment contract: Pass
- Compensation survey or study: Pass
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 54%; rating input score 54; 30th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 66.7%; rating input score 67; 14th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -13.1%; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.49; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.39; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 16.6%; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 11.9% per year; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 6.8% per year; rating input score 100; 54th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 3.8% per year; rating input score 100; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 74.8% of revenue deployed · 69.1% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 2 of 3 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 5 filed program accomplishments · $1.1M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $275K · 3 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 34 of 36 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 7 filing years from 2015 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
- 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.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 33/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 54/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 14/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 23/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 20/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 20/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D land buildings reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.