Durham Tech Foundation
Legal name: Durham Technical Community College Foundation
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 561423848
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2009–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Jul 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Durham, NC, US
- Phone
- 919-536-7200, ext. 6007
- Rating
- 68
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Community or Junior Colleges
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $25,086,860
- Expenses
- $4,171,225
- Assets
- $37,533,860
- Liabilities
- $605,883
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
18 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- ROXANNE MILLER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- JOHN B BUXTON (SECRETARY): $410,517 total reported compensation
- ANDREW KLEITSCH (TREASURER): $174,748 total reported compensation
- ROXANNE MILLER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $167,967 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 Durham Tech Foundation looks forward to being an agent of change in the important work ahead—helping expand job training and tools in growing industries through private support, cultivating strategic partnerships to address our community’s most pressing needs, and better resourcing Durham Tech to become a fully student-centered institution that ensures that all students develop the knowledge, skills, and networks needed to be successful.
What it reported doing in 2024
Program support is a broad classification that includes support for needs not met by traditional department budgets such as classroom equipment, student success resources, professional development, and other employee support services. 13,137 individuals including students and employees were served during the current year.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 99% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 62% of its reported program spending out as grants.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 52
- Transparency & Controls: 71
- Accountability: 84
- Sustainability: 90
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 17.9%; rating input score 18
- Program expense ratio: 93.8%; rating input score 94
- Fundraising efficiency: $3,559.4 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 99; 99th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Missing
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 88.2%; rating input score 88; 20th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Fail
- 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: 83.4%; rating input score 98; 98th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 9; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 3.9%; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 15.6% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 24.4% per year; rating input score 100; 95th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 17.7% per year; rating input score 100; 86th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 6 programs and campaigns described on the official site
- Where the money goes: 17.9% of revenue deployed · 93.8% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 15 of 17 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $3.9M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $411K · 18 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $114K reported
- Consistency: 21 of 21 current checks pass
- Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 3 filed related-organization links
- 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 18/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.