National Society of the Daughters of the American Revolution

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
870493687
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2024–2025
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2025, Form 990-N 2023
Location
Provo, UT, USA
Phone
0000000000
Rating
59
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$60,558
Expenses
$50,377
Assets
$131,853
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

People named in this filing

  • Hollie Gilliland (Utah State Regent)
  • Luana Darby (State Vice Regent)
  • Danielle Cahoon (Chaplain)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

A service organization that supports education historic preservation and patriotismsupporting military and veterans with financial donations in-kind donations and morale boosting activities

What it reported doing in 2025

America 250 Marker Display for West Jordan UT Military Services Monument Had a DAR marker affixed to a boulder and placed at the Monument to help the public commemorate our nations 250th birthday and to show support for our military by adding something beautiful to their monument park Historic preservation and patriotism

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 71% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
Distribution model
Multi-channel. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 35% for direct work, 43% for grants, and 22% for member benefits.

The verdict

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and revenue comfortably covers expenses. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 40
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 68
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 39%; rating input score 39
  • Program expense ratio: 42.6%; rating input score 43

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 16.8%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.62; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 65.7% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -10.2% per year; rating input score 0; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7.8% per year; rating input score 100; 65th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 39% of revenue deployed · 42.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 4 filed program accomplishments · $21K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 9 of 9 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2024 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 39/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 43/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.