DTWO LTD DBA Awana Digital

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
263761772
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2014
Location
San Francisco, CA, USA
Phone
3473283110
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
International Human Rights

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,971,751
Expenses
$2,006,065
Assets
$1,233,004
Liabilities
$27,438

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

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • Emily Jacobi (CoDirector): $115,039 total reported compensation
  • Jen Castro (CoDirector): $97,148 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Awana Digital works in solidarity with frontline communities to use technology to defend their rights.

What it reported doing in 2024

Deep Accompaniment - direct work with local partners - Awana Digital works with Indigenous and other frontline communities in the Amazon region (including Peru, Ecuador, and Brazil), Kenya, Southeast Asia and the Pacific to support their efforts to gather, manage, and share information about environmental and human rights challenges happening in their communities. We support the capacity building and technical training of local communities and build open source tools to better meet their needs. We focus on territory mapping and environmental monitoring programs to support local efforts to document and halt deforestation. In 2024 we worked with 14 partners in 7 countries. Train communities to use basic digital tools, such as cameras, mobile phones, maps, and data collection tools. Conduct ongoing support and capacity building for its partners whose projects are designed to defend their human and environmental rights.Tool Building & Product Support - Awana Digital uses and supports the development of open source mapping and monitoring tools. In 2024 we continued to develop CoMapeo, a free tool for groups to use for mapping and environmental monitoring, as well as Terrastories, a free tool for combining maps with stories and oral history. In addition, we provide product support for both tools. Co-create tech solutions with partners and help them adapt existing tools to their needs. Also, collaborate with other technologists to support the greater eco-system of open-source tools which can support partners' needs.Local to Global Engagement - In 2024, Awana Digital continued to host the Earth Defenders Toolkit, an online platform for earth defenders around the world to learn from each other about how to use technology to defend their local environment. Additionally, through events, speaking engagements, and presentations, Awana Digital helped audiences understand the global issues present in our work and the opportunities for local communities to use technology to more effectively advocate for their rights. The Organization scales its impact beyond its direct partners. Through events, workshops, and tool-kits, the Organization builds bridges between its work and the work of advocates and decision-makers around the world.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 87% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 90% 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 most voting board members are independent. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 81
  • Transparency & Controls: 55
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 34
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 86.5%; rating input score 86
  • Program expense ratio: 85%; rating input score 85
  • Fundraising efficiency: $12.61 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 86.7%; rating input score 87; 3rd 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: 17.8%; rating input score 18; 26th 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: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: -1.7%; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.61; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 10.6%; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 20.8% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 18.1% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 21% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 86.5% of revenue deployed · 85% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.7M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $115K · 9 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $111K reported
  • Consistency: 22 of 23 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and grants
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 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 — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 7 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 18/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 45/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 31/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 28/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 35/100.