Foundation for Dubuque Public Schools

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
421441694
IRS 990 coverage
2021–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2020, Form 990-N 2011
Location
Dubuque, IA, USA
Phone
5635882700
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Public Foundations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$224,239
Expenses
$194,656
Assets
$187,711
Liabilities
$9,738

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

Leadership & pay

17 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Lauren Czeshinski (President)
  • Zach Hodge (Immediate Past President)
  • Katie Stork (Vice President/President Elect)

Highest reported compensation

  • Chelsea Cox (Exec. Director): $73,894 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Support student achievement by promoting investment in the Dubuque Public Schools.

What it reported doing in 2024

Dubuque Community School District started the Foundation (DCSDF) as a means of developing alternative forms of funding education in our community. The Board examines every possible avenue for raising funds, including applying for grants and solicitations from organizations and firms in the Dubuque area who are served by the Dubuque Community School District. In mid-2008 the Board of Directors entered into a partner affiliate agreement with the Community Foundation of Greater Dubuque (CFGD). This arrangement allows the DCSDF to utilize the expertise and resources of the CFGD yet maintain autonomy in decision making and development.Statement continued on Schedule O.A primary function of the Foundation for Dubuque Public Schools (FDPS) is to establish endowed and non-endowed funds that support educational initiatives in Dubuque's Public Schools. These funds are managed in partnership with the Community Foundation of Greater Dubuque (CFGD) and they are considered CFGD's assets. They do not appear on FDPS balance sheets or financial statements, so they are not reported on our 990.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 92% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 51% for direct work, and 49% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 73
  • Transparency & Controls: 68
  • Accountability: 79
  • Sustainability: 47
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 70.4%; rating input score 70
  • Program expense ratio: 80%; rating input score 80
  • Fundraising efficiency: $26.45 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 84.6%; rating input score 85; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 53rd 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: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 13.2%; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.96; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.05; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 38%; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 5.8% per year; rating input score 100; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8% per year; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 9.8% per year; rating input score 100; 65th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 70.4% of revenue deployed · 80% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 15 of 15 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $156K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $74K · 17 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 24 of 26 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2021 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 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.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 40/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 7/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 32/100.