Dandelion House Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
462212689
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2013
Forms available
Form 990 2013
Location
Jacksonville, FL, USA
Phone
3865693042
Rating
38
Verdict
REVIEW
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Developmentally Disabled Centers

Reported finances

Revenue
$7,661
Expenses
$5,060
Assets
$3,780
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2013. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • RACHEL RIPPEY (PRESIDENT)
  • BETSY LITTLE (VICE PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • RACHEL RIPPEY (PRESIDENT)
  • BETSY LITTLE (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • KIM SHELVER (SECRETARY)

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

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2013. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

See schedule o for explanation

What it reported doing in 2013

To promote dignity and self worth of people with disabilities by ensuring effective and meaningful positions within the community. Teaching and reinforcing necessary jobs and life skills on a continuing basis. Held classes for the same individuals.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 87% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% 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

REVIEW - 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: 8
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 24
  • Sustainability: 62
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 7.1%; rating input score 7
  • Program expense ratio: 10.7%; rating input score 11
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: Limited
  • Governance controls: 4 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 57
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 34%; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.75; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • Where the money goes: 7.1% of revenue deployed · 10.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $5K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 15 of 15 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • 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.

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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 7/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 11/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 22/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.