Dickinson Iron Community Services Agency
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 382889846
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2009–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2009
- Location
- Iron Mountain, MI, USA
- Phone
- 9067742256
- Rating
- 84
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Human Service Organizations
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $4,283,959
- Expenses
- $3,995,239
- Assets
- $2,622,089
- Liabilities
- $757,491
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
12 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- KRISTIN SOMMERFELD (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- KRISTIN SOMMERFELD (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $99,386 total reported compensation
- JACKIE SAFFORD (FINANCIAL DIRECTOR): $72,167 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Connect people to resources, provide a means to overcome challenges, strengthen self-sufficiency, and work in partnership with our community to make a difference in the lives of our neighbors.
What it reported doing in 2024
Senior citizens: family ties - family ties provides adult day services in a safe, secure, and stimulating environment. These services are provided to individuals who are diagnosed with alzheimer's, other forms of dementia, cognitive and physical disabilities on a less than 24-hour basis. Family ties provides an activity program in a socially stimulating setting which, in turn, provides respite for their primary caregivers. Theres were 7,415 hours of direct care provided during the fiscal year.in-home program - provides homemaking, homecare assistance (personal care), and respite care to participants in dickinson county. There were 4,048 hours of direct care provided during the fiscal year.home delivered meal program - serves dickinson, iron and baraga counties. The program is designed to assist homebound seniors in meeting their nutritional needs by delivering meals to their homes up to five days a week. Persons qualify for a meal if they are 60 years of age or older, unable to leave their home, unable to prepare their own meals or have no other access to a nutritionally balanced meal. 80,327 meals were served during the fiscal year.congregate meal program - provides nutritious meals and nutrition education to older individuals in a congregate setting in dickinson and iron counties. The program also provides an opportunity for socialization and obtaining information about other services available in the area. 16,531 meals were served during the fiscal year.community:
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Grant-funded. 70% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 80% for direct work, and 20% for grants.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
The verdict
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Revenue has declined or grown slowly and some related-organization disclosures are missing.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 80
- Transparency & Controls: 90
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 44
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 87.5%; rating input score 87
- Program expense ratio: 93.7%; rating input score 94
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 13th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Scored; rating input score 0
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 9 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: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: Pass
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 6.7%; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.66; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.29; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 4.3%; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 2.1% per year; rating input score 100; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -0.2% per year; rating input score 0; 11th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 10.6% per year; rating input score 100; 61st percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 87.5% of revenue deployed · 93.7% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $3.7M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $99K · 12 people listed
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $826K reported
- Consistency: 31 of 32 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and related organizations
- Filing history: 15 filing years from 2009 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
- 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.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Related-party transparency scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 24/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 55/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 35/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 59/100.