Durham Economic Resource Center

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
263742480
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2015
Forms available
Form 990 2015
Location
Durham, NC, USA
Phone
9196825912
Rating
84
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Libraries

Reported finances

Revenue
$445,445
Expenses
$544,460
Assets
$26,961
Liabilities
$71,970

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Jacqueline Brown (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • Jacqueline Brown (CEO): $68,750 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To address adult poverty in Durham County by providing low-cost merchandise to nonprofit agencies and on-the-job training to the unemployed and hard-to-employ and by building and developing strategic partnerships to help address the root causes of poverty.

What it reported doing in 2015

Workforce Development - a priority objective of DERC is to train the chronically unemployed and "hard to employ" using skills-based classroom training, supervised on-the-job training and support services. The goal with this program is to develop a workforce that is prepared and ready to address the market needs of Durham County. Thus, specific components of the training program are designed based on the workforce needs of local businesses as well as the assets and challenges of the training participants.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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.
  • 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. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 79
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 11
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 93.2%; rating input score 93
  • Program expense ratio: 76.2%; rating input score 76
  • Fundraising efficiency: $4.59 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings

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: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -22.2%; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.05; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 2.67; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 12.6%; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 9% per year; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5.6% per year; rating input score 100; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 12.1% per year; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 93.2% of revenue deployed · 76.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $415K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $69K · 9 people listed
  • Consistency: 26 of 26 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2012 to 2015
  • 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.

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: Fundraising efficiency scored 21/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 12/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 4/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 1/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 31/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.