Big Lakes Developmental Center Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
480795169
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-T 2023
Location
Manhattan, KS, USA
Phone
7857769201
Rating
84
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Developmentally Disabled Centers

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$12,261,117
Expenses
$12,383,350
Assets
$9,030,522
Liabilities
$615,944

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

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Lori B Feldkamp (President CEO)
  • Elizabeth G Holle (President and CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • Lori B Feldkamp (President CEO): $243,009 total reported compensation
  • Phillip K Korenek (Chief Financial Officer): $162,262 total reported compensation
  • Elizabeth G Holle (President and CEO): $160,591 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The mission of Big Lakes Developmental Center Inc. is to deliver quality services that promote choice independence and inclusion for persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities.

What it reported doing in 2025

Mission based programs and services includes: 1 Employment programs including fully integrated community job development placement and coaching services community-based contract enclave services and center-based employment contracts and training services. Approximately 126 persons served. 2 Day Services including community activities and access program retirement program adult day care and personal care services and life skills training. Approximately 156 persons served. 3 Residential services including independent semi- independent and group home living opportunities and supports that promote independence and integration into the community. Approximately 116 persons served.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 87% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 99% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

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: 82
  • Transparency & Controls: 88
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 29
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 92.7%; rating input score 93
  • Program expense ratio: 91.8%; rating input score 92
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 5 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 83
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 76th 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; 64th 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: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -1%; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.73; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.07; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5.7%; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 3.7% per year; rating input score 100; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.3% per year; rating input score 100; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -1.5% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 92.7% of revenue deployed · 91.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $11.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $243K · 13 people listed · 5 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 45 of 46 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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 — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 18/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 20/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 52/100.