Palmer Drug Abuse Program of Cc I

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
742200058
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2014
Forms available
Form 990 2014
Location
Corpus Christi, TX, USA
Rating
84
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Alcohol, Drug and Substance Abuse, Dependency Prevention and Treatment

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$312,811
Expenses
$400,177
Assets
$309,205
Liabilities
$7,112

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • WADE FJELD (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • WADE FJELD (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $44,615 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

This program provides services to individuals in the nueces county and surrounding areas with a recovery program for persons with drug and alcohol abuse.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 89% 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

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 91
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 25
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 87.9%; rating input score 88
  • Fundraising efficiency: $13.62 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 51; 51st 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: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -27.9%; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.77; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 11.1%; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 87.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $352K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $45K · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 27 of 27 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 1 filing year from 2014
  • 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.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 51/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 9/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 37/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 33/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 51/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.