Mississippi Humanities Council Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 640561264
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2009–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Jackson, MS, USA
- Phone
- 6014326752
- Rating
- 82
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Humanities Organizations
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $1,532,402
- Expenses
- $1,476,565
- Assets
- $1,484,903
- Liabilities
- $155,907
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
24 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- DR STUART ROCKOFF (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- DR STUART ROCKOFF (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $158,511 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The Mississippi humanities council (mhc) seeks to create and foster opportunities for the people of Mississippi to understand themselves and others and to place their lives in the larger context of the human condition. In the belief that learning about the past and interpreting the present will allow our society to provide a better future for everyone. The mhc will use the processes and disciplines of the humanities to focus on four areas: books and reading, Mississippi history and culture, civil discourse, and capacity building.
What it reported doing in 2024
Prison education initiative - the mhc supports humanities-based prison education programs, including book discussion programs at 12 different facilities. We also support for-credit courses being taught by community colleges and four-year universities in several Mississippi prisons. We also established and support the Mississippi consortium of higher education in prisons. We have been able to expand this program significantly in recent years due to major support from the mellon foundation.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 66% for direct work, and 34% for grants.
The verdict
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 83
- Transparency & Controls: 71
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 43
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 83.3%; rating input score 83
- Program expense ratio: 84.6%; rating input score 85
- Fundraising efficiency: $50.24 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 19th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 90.7%; rating input score 91; 39th percentile among comparable filings
- 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: 8 of 8 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: NotApplicable
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 3.6%; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.01; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.1; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 10.7%; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 6.7% per year; rating input score 100; 50th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 6.3% per year; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 9.1% per year; rating input score 100; 56th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 83.3% of revenue deployed · 84.6% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 23 of 23 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $1.2M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $159K · 24 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 29 of 30 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 15 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 14 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.
- 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.
Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 46/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 43/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 34/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 42/100.
- High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.