DXtera Institute

Legal name: Dxtera Institute Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
815103331
IRS 990 coverage
2018–2025
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Boston, MA, USA
Phone
(202) 656-5140
Rating
58
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Educational Services and Schools - Other

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,039,252
Expenses
$1,213,032
Assets
$79,269
Liabilities
$503,736

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Dale Allen (President & Co-Founder)

Highest reported compensation

  • Jeffrey Merriman (Chief Technology Officer & Co-Founder): $214,451 total reported compensation
  • Dale Allen (President & Co-Founder): $199,664 total reported compensation
  • Amon Horne (Deputy Chief Technology Officer): $180,519 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To transform the way higher education does business and drive student success by providing efficient access to information.

What it reported doing in 2025

DXtera Institute, Inc. provides memberships to institutions of higher education (both public and private), other education systems (state or regional), and other not for profits and for profits educational partners that could benefit from the increased usage of digital integration technology. We served 71 institutions and organization in tax year 2025.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 100% 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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 75
  • Transparency & Controls: 46
  • Accountability: 58
  • Sustainability: 5
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 89.3%; rating input score 89
  • Program expense ratio: 76.5%; rating input score 76
  • Fundraising efficiency: $0 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Grant itemization coverage: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 60%; rating input score 60; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 56
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -16.7%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.07; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 6.35; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 49%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -6.1% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 10.9% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -0.8% per year; rating input score 0; 13th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 9 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 89.3% of revenue deployed · 76.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 5 board members independent · 5 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $928K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $214K · 9 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 41 of 41 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes foreign activity and executive pay
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2018 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 1/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 8/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 4/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 2/100.