Dramatists Guild Foundation

Legal name: The Dramatists Guild Fund Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
136144932
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2025
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
New York, NY, US
Phone
(212) 391-8384
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,849,157
Expenses
$3,166,227
Assets
$10,340,289
Liabilities
$1,236,402

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

Leadership & pay

28 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • RACHEL ROUTH (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • ANDREW LIPPA (PRESIDENT)
  • KEVIN HAGER (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • RACHEL ROUTH (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $201,938 total reported compensation
  • MEGHAN GAUR (DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT): $129,200 total reported compensation
  • EVELYN SO (DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS AND FINANCE): $121,623 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 provide playwrights, theatrical composers, lyricists, and librettists with financial support, education and mentorship, as well as space to work and collaborate, fostering the future and beauty of the American theater.

What it reported doing in 2025

Grants and awards to theaters and institutions for promoting drama - dgf supports theater companies throughout the united states by providing grants to theatrical organizations across the country that produce works by contemporary americal playwrights, lyricists, and composers. Grants in aid to individual writers based on hardship - through the kesselring emergency grant program, the fund awards emergency assistance to writers who are experiencing financial hardship.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 91% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 73% for direct work, and 27% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and reported officer compensation is a large share of total spending, which may reflect staffing concentration.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 58
  • Transparency & Controls: 76
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 61
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 60.7%; rating input score 61
  • Program expense ratio: 63.7%; rating input score 64
  • Fundraising efficiency: $6.42 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.1%; rating input score 94; 23rd 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: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 95.4%; rating input score 95; 36th 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: 8 of 8 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: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 17.7%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.27; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.12; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 17.7%; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 9.9% per year; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2.5% per year; rating input score 100; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 9.8% per year; rating input score 100; 57th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 6 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 60.7% of revenue deployed · 63.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 24 of 24 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $202K · 28 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 38 of 39 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2016 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 21/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 18/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 45/100.