Durham Devils Giving Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
883286213
IRS 990 coverage
2022–2023
Forms available
Form 990 2023
Location
Braselton, GA, USA
Phone
2026185012
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Philanthropy, Voluntarism, and Grantmaking Foundations N.E.C.

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,201,328
Expenses
$1,262,253
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MARION LEO HART (DIRECTOR/PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • MARION LEO HART (DIRECTOR/PRESIDENT)
  • SCOTT HAMILTON (DIRECTOR/SECRETARY)
  • ROBERT NAEDELE (DIRECTOR/TREASURER (UNTIL 6/30/23))

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 2023. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Durham devils giving, inc.'s (ddgi) mission is to conduct charitable and educational activities, including, without limitation, providing grants and other support to nonprofit organizations, and educating and empowering collegiate athletes to support charitable organizations and causes.

What it reported doing in 2023

During the second year of operations, seventy-two (72) athletes served as spokespersons for their sports, and their communities. Ddgi supported both the student athletes and selected nonprofit organizations as follows: educating student athletes. An important element of ddgi's work during the year was educating student athletes including through specific training in communications/media, public relations and other skills that are relevant for specific charitable engagements. Another aspect of the educational program was helping duke university student-athletes explore their areas of interest. Elevating nonprofit organizations. Ddgi's program aided the nonprofit organizations by raising public awareness of their charitable issues and causes through publicity and expended fundraising opportunities, ultimately benefiting the charitable beneficiaries and communities served. In each case, ddgi endeavored to understand the nonprofit's needs and ways that student athletes can lend their support and service. Ddgi deployed college athletes, either individually or in teams, to meet those needs. Ddgi facilitated events, appearances, social media engagement, and a variety of public service opportunities.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 97% 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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 76
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Accountability: 88
  • Sustainability: 22
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 80%; rating input score 80
  • Program expense ratio: 76.1%; rating input score 76
  • Fundraising efficiency: $17.69 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 71.8%; rating input score 72; 32nd 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: 5 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 71
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -5.1%; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 113.4% per year; rating input score 100; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 108.5% per year; rating input score 100; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -200% per year; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 80% of revenue deployed · 76.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 3 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $961K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 21 of 22 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2022 to 2023
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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 — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 26/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 56/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.