Dekalb County Mental Retardation Board

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
630910551
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Fort Payne, AL, USA
Phone
2568451097
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Mental Health Association

Reported finances

Revenue
$210,314
Expenses
$176,644
Assets
$902,063
Liabilities
$114,904

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • AMANDA PHILLIPS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • BRUCE HALE (PRESIDENT)
  • MARILYN PEPPERS (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • AMANDA PHILLIPS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $68,579 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

It is the mission of the dekalb county mental retardation board, inc. To positively affect the quality of life for persons with mental retardation and developmental disabilities by helping to ensure that appropriate and quality services are available and accessible throughout their lifespan. The dekalb county mental retardation board, inc. Expects that all services will ensure full participation in all life experiences through a family and consumer-driven, proactive, and creative system which allows service options to be tailored to individual's and family's needs.

What it reported doing in 2024

The board contracts with the Alabama department of mental health to provide services to the mentally disabled adults in dekalb county, Alabama.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 98% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 63
  • Transparency & Controls: 83
  • Accountability: 79
  • Sustainability: 60
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 65.9%; rating input score 66
  • Program expense ratio: 79.9%; rating input score 80
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 19th 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: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 16%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 5.11; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.13; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 38.8%; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -18.4% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -10.6% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 0.6% per year; rating input score 100; 27th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 65.9% of revenue deployed · 79.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 15 of 15 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $141K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $69K · 15 people listed
  • Consistency: 24 of 25 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 7/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 24/100.