Daniel Payne College Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
630328640
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2014
Forms available
Form 990 2014
Location
Birmingham, AL, USA
Phone
2053264499
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Undergraduate College (4-year)

Reported finances

Revenue
$393,147
Expenses
$3,099,988
Assets
$1,188,532
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

25 people listed

People named in this filing

  • REV OLIVER ALLEN (Director)
  • REV WILLIS HUGGINS SR (Director)
  • JAMES C BONNER (Director)

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 2014. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The school is organized to allow

What it reported doing in 2014

The school is organized to allow low income students an opportunity to achieve a higher education.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% 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

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of total spending goes to programs and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 47
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 17
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 77.6%; rating input score 78
  • Program expense ratio: 9.9%; rating input score 10
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Limited
    • Other executive compensation review process: Limited
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -688.5%; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.38; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: Limited

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 11.1% per year; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -45% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -14.6% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 77.6% of revenue deployed · 9.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 34 of 34 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $307K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 25 people listed
  • Consistency: 22 of 22 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2011 to 2014
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Related organizations: 2 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.

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: Program expense ratio scored 10/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 22/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.