Duet

Legal name: Duet Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
833778725
IRS 990 coverage
2021–2024
Official website data refreshed
Jul 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2020
Location
Omaha, Nebraska, US
Phone
(402) 444-6500
Rating
62
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Developmentally Disabled Centers

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$102,015
Expenses
$30,606
Assets
$403,520
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DEBBIE HERBEL (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • DEBBIE HERBEL (PRESIDENT): $171,440 total reported compensation
  • SARAH GRAHAM (TREASURER): $137,241 total reported compensation
  • MARK GARCIA (CFO): $114,058 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Duet offers a range of services to support, nurture and guide Nebraskan adults with developmental and intellectual disabilities.

What it reported doing in 2024

Equipment and services - this fund supplies needed funds for equipment and services that are not reimbursable based on medicaid provisions. This would include things like sensory items, hoyer lifts, hi-low beds. At times, funding is not available for services due to wait lists. When possible, duet tries to meet those needs until a person is fully funded.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 71% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 65% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 54
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 82
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 41.2%; rating input score 41
  • Program expense ratio: 94.6%; rating input score 95
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 80%; rating input score 80; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 56
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 70%; rating input score 96; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 13.18; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 142.5%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -14.5% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -21.5% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8% per year; rating input score 100; 59th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 7 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 8 operating locations identified
  • Where the money goes: 41.2% of revenue deployed · 94.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 5 board members independent · 5 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $29K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $171K · 8 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 12 of 12 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2021 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 41/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 1/100.