Digital Promise

Legal name: National Center for Research in Advanced Information and Digital Technology

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
452708794
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2019
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2019
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
7038611556
Rating
87
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Educational Services and Schools - Other

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$38,475,850
Expenses
$39,524,696
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2019. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • KAREN CATOR (PRESIDENT & CEO)
  • LYDIA LOGAN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR - VILS)
  • KIMBERLY SMITH (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR - LEAGUE)

Highest reported compensation

  • KAREN CATOR (PRESIDENT & CEO): $176,797 total reported compensation
  • LYDIA LOGAN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR - VILS): $169,398 total reported compensation
  • KATHRYN PETRILLO-SMITH (CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER): $153,388 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2019. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Digital Promise shapes the future of learning and expands opportunity for every learner by bringing together solutions across research, practice, and technology.

What it reported doing in 2019

Powerful learning: powerful learning is a set of principles guiding educators to design learning experiences that engage the hearts and minds of learners. 2019 activities included the continued growth of the micro-credential initiative with 3,447 micro-credential submissions resulting in 2,158 of them being awarded. 520 unique micro-credentials were available on the platform in 2019. The adult learning initiative released a landscape report on the role of data in the adult learning ecosystem, and initiated subsequent research on frontline worker advancement with funding provided by walmart. Also in 2019, the oer deeper learning for ngss project brought together three school districts to explore how the challenge based learning framework can be used to create science experiences that lead to deeper learning for students through the creation of oer units of instruction aligned to the next generation science standards.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 83% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 69% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 99
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 17
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 99.8%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 97.2%; rating input score 97
  • Fundraising efficiency: $751.26 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 96; 96th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 17th 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: 91.2%; rating input score 91; 22nd 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; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -2.7%; rating input score 20; 20th 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: 2.6%; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 31.4% per year; rating input score 100; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 28.5% per year; rating input score 100; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 10.7% per year; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 3 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 2 operating locations identified
  • Where the money goes: 99.8% of revenue deployed · 97.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $38.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $177K · 13 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $6.9M reported
  • Consistency: 32 of 33 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2013 to 2019
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 68 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 38 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 20/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.