Inter-Regional Center For Curriculum & Materials Development

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
630854271
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2013–2014
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2014
Location
Birmingham, AL, USA
Phone
2053910727
Rating
63
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Management & Technical Assistance

Reported finances

Revenue
$60,423
Expenses
$20,002
Assets
$57,681
Liabilities
$10,000

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

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Dr Karen Bowyer (President)

People named in this filing

  • Dr Karen Bowyer (President)
  • Dr Dwight E Overholser (Board Member Emeritus)
  • Dr Burton Fox (Chief Administrative Offic)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To discover and develop ways and means for improving understanding through international education; to broaden the dimensions, improve the quality of teaching and learning, facilitate communication and cooperative action between and among all schools involved in the Center; and to facilitate cooperative action with national, state, local or non-governmental agencies in the field of international education.

What it reported doing in 2014

A week long program focused on ehancing technology literacy skills in the classroom. This program was held at Western Carolina University and attended by 32 participants.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 66% 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 revenue comfortably covers expenses. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 36
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Sustainability: 76
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 20.5%; rating input score 21
  • Program expense ratio: 62%; rating input score 62

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 66.9%; rating input score 96; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.88; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.17; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -138.5% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -26.6% per year; rating input score 0; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 155.3% per year; rating input score 100; 99th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 20.5% of revenue deployed · 62% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $12K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 8 of 8 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2013 to 2014
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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: Mission deployment rate scored 21/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 21/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 57/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.