Mississippi Public Health Institute
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 453005888
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2012–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025
- Location
- Madison, MS, USA
- Phone
- 6013984406
- Rating
- 82
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Health - General and Rehabilitative N.E.C.
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $14,858,712
- Expenses
- $15,027,862
- Assets
- $2,247,786
- Liabilities
- $1,757,764
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
14 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- LEE DUKES (PRESIDENT)
- ROY HART (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER)
Highest reported compensation
- GLENDA CRUMP (CHIEF OPERATIONS OFFICER): $160,503 total reported compensation
- ROY HART (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER): $157,289 total reported compensation
- JACINDA ROACH (PROGRAM DIRECTOR): $136,265 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To promote and advocate public health in the state of Mississippi through professional development and education.
What it reported doing in 2025
Mississippi public health institute (msphi) is implementing projects that have significant impact on public and mental health systems as well as primary care in Mississippi. These projects focus on innovative practices, evidence-based intervention, evaluation, and true stakeholder engagement in Mississippi. Key partners include the Mississippi state department of health (msdh), the Mississippi department of mental health (mdmh) as well as several foundations. A significant and challenging health disparity in Mississippi is infant and maternal morbidity and mortality among african americans. For a number of reasons, african american women are more often affected. Mississippi maternal health innovation task force is to reduce maternal mortality and severe morbidity through comprehensive strategies that improve access to high-quality care and support for mothers. This includes focusing on maternal mental health, expanding programs like centering pregnancy, improving provider education, and addressing issues like medicaid reenrollment and social determinants of health. This collaboration brings together hospitals, community health centers, and providers to address the critical healthcare challenges faced by women and their families. By focusing on quality services, workforce development, and innovative technology, we're driving meaningful change and fostering a healthier future for Mississippi. Msphi continues to develop and implement programs and activities with partners to address this health crisis. Additionally, in 2025 the cdc funded Mississippi perinatal quality collaborative (mpqc) (www.mspqc.org) continues to interact with hospitals and clinicians in Mississippi working to improve quality and systems supporting the childbirth in Mississippi.msphi continues to work with the Mississippi department of mental health to secure funding from the substance abuse and mental health services administration (samhsa) to address Mississippi's opioid epidemic. Msphi housed staff, managed the initial communications campaign and facilitated organizational partnerships necessary to align state and federal resources to muster a comprehensive and coordinated plan and response from the mental health and public health systems. Msphi partners with the msdh and the mdmh to implement community-based work aimed at implementing data-driven activities to reduce morbidity and mortality from opioid and other drug abuse and misuse. Msphi is a major partner to the department of health office of pharmacy and their activities focused on substance use prevention and control. Through these efforts msphi has convened state-level partners to calesce data and established new lines of coordination and collaboration using diverse funding streams (www.odfree.org).
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Grant-funded. 65% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
- 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
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and expenses are high relative to revenue.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 91
- Transparency & Controls: 65
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 18
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 90.8%; rating input score 91
- Program expense ratio: 89.8%; rating input score 90
- Fundraising efficiency: $385.42 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
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: Limited
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 9 of 9 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: Pass
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -1.1%; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.15; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.78; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 3.9%; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 20.8% per year; rating input score 100; 88th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 20.6% per year; rating input score 100; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 7.8% per year; rating input score 100; 55th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 90.8% of revenue deployed · 89.8% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $13.5M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $161K · 14 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $4.5M reported
- Consistency: 31 of 31 current checks pass
- Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
- Filing history: 13 filing years from 2012 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
- 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.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 17/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 3/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 12/100.