The Delta Institute

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
364210191
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Chicago, IL, USA
Phone
3125540900
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Community Improvement, Capacity Building N.E.C.

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,731,717
Expenses
$3,165,334
Assets
$8,272,445
Liabilities
$1,957,050

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

Leadership & pay

21 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • WILLIAM SCHLEIZER (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • WILLIAM SCHLEIZER (CEO): $227,466 total reported compensation
  • SIDNEY FREITAG-FEY (CDO): $207,245 total reported compensation
  • HELEN HARDY (CFO): $201,393 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Delta institute is a nonprofit that collaborates with communities to solve complex environmental challenges across the midwest.

What it reported doing in 2024

Delta institute (delta) collaborates with communities to solve complex environmental challenges throughout the midwest. We envision a region in which all communities and landscapes thrive through an integrated approach to environmental, economic, and social challenges. Our work takes us to cities like chicago, st. Louis, and milwaukee to communities such as hobart, Indiana to great lakes coastal towns like sebewaing, Michigan to rural communities with thousands of acres of farmland and waterways. Delta exists because environmental and economic issues hit communities, both urban and rural, through disinvestment, inequity, and policy decisions. We collaborate to solve systemic environmental and economic issues at the community level by focusing on the self-defined goals and needs that our partners share with us.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 54% for direct work, and 46% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 70
  • Transparency & Controls: 84
  • Accountability: 92
  • Sustainability: 30
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 80.1%; rating input score 80
  • Program expense ratio: 67.4%; rating input score 67
  • Fundraising efficiency: $7.46 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 84.6%; rating input score 85; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 5 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 83
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Pass
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 93.7%; rating input score 94; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 94.1%; rating input score 94; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • 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: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -15.9%; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.61; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.24; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 28.1%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -4.7% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -4.1% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -1.3% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 80.1% of revenue deployed · 67.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 16 of 17 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $227K · 21 people listed · 5 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 29 of 31 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2012 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 17 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 15 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: Fundraising efficiency scored 28/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 9/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Form 990 shared with the board not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 6/100.
  • 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 40/100.