Mesa Developmental Services

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
846044855
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Grand Junction, CO, USA
Phone
9702568603
Rating
79
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Developmentally Disabled Centers

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$16,638,847
Expenses
$14,935,054
Assets
$19,379,373
Liabilities
$2,332,527

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • GRANT JACKSON (PRESIDENT AND CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • GRANT JACKSON (PRESIDENT AND CEO): $193,081 total reported compensation
  • CHRIS BERGQUIST (CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER): $179,568 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Mesa developmental services is a not-for-profit organization that provides community based services and support for persons with developmental disabilities of mesa county. We promote, within caring environments, opportunities that nurture personal growth, improve self-esteem, support community inclusion and advance the independence of those served.

What it reported doing in 2024

Employment related services - includes a number of supported community small group opportunities. Vocational skills focus on four main skills including community business, community employment, community integration and life skills. Specialized habilitation services and supports are offered in four distinct settings which enable an individual to attain the maximum functioning level or to be supported in such a manner that allows an individual to gain an increased level of self-sufficiency.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 85% of the money available for current operations came from other operating 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. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 77
  • Transparency & Controls: 81
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 62
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 77.8%; rating input score 78
  • Program expense ratio: 86.3%; rating input score 86
  • Fundraising efficiency: $14.57 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.1%; rating input score 94; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 10.2%; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.3; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.12; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 2.5%; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -2% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 0.2% per year; rating input score 100; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7% per year; rating input score 100; 49th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 77.8% of revenue deployed · 86.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 11 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $12.9M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $193K · 12 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $1.2M reported
  • Consistency: 34 of 35 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 49/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 46/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.