Alabama Independent Drugstore Association

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
631134360
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2011
Forms available
Form 990 2011
Location
Mobile, AL, USA
Phone
2514764578
Rating confidence
Limited
Sector
Professional Societies, Associations

Reported finances

Revenue
$85,021
Expenses
$103,731
Assets
$266,127
Liabilities
$953,181

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2011. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2011. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Serve as a non-profit trade association representing the interests of independent retail drugstores in Alabama. Work with all stakeholders to ensure independent drugstores continue to provide the public quality health care products and services.

What it reported doing in 2011

The association analyzes business operating environment and communicates issues affecting independent community pharmacies to membership.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

- The available evidence is not sufficient to produce an overall rating for this filing. This is not a warning sign.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: NotEnoughData
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Accountability: 63
  • Sustainability: 31
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: Limited
  • Program expense ratio: Limited
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -22%; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.57; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 3.58; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 26.2%; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: -58.5% per year; rating input score 0; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -7.7% per year; rating input score 0; 26th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
  • Governance: 14 of 14 board members independent · 1 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments
  • Leadership: top reported pay $27K · 15 people listed
  • Consistency: 9 of 9 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2010 to 2011
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.

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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 7 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 37/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 40/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 1/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 13/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.