Partners for Rural Impact
Legal name: Partners for Rural Impact Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 872937264
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2021–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Berea, KY, USA
- Phone
- 8599852602
- Rating
- 84
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Standard
- Sector
- Educational Services and Schools - Other
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $77,983,985
- Expenses
- $68,661,844
- Assets
- $33,958,672
- Liabilities
- $14,429,064
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
17 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- DREAMA GENTRY (PRESIDENT & CEO)
- JANE HODGDON (EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT (AS OF 6/16/25))
- PENELOPE JORDAN (EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT)
- AMON COUCH (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
- JEFF WALKER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: EAST TEXAS C2C PARTNERSHIP)
- KERRI FERRARI (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: MEXICO C2C PARTNERSHIP (UNTIL 1/22/25))
Highest reported compensation
- DREAMA GENTRY (PRESIDENT & CEO): $351,393 total reported compensation
- PENELOPE JORDAN (EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT): $237,699 total reported compensation
- SHANE GARVER (VP OF STRATEGIC IMPACT): $217,384 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Accelerating outcomes for rural youth from cradle to career.
What it reported doing in 2024
Through community partnerships, PRI implements programs, supports local leaders, and drives funding to rural places to move population-level outcomes and advance system change. PRI builds capacity of leaders, organizations, and schools in under-resourced rural communities by increasing access to proven practices through trainings and technical assistance.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Grant-funded. 68% 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 the filed numbers largely add up. Total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown and reported officer compensation is a large share of total spending, which may reflect staffing concentration.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 82
- Transparency & Controls: 80
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 50
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 77.6%; rating input score 78
- Program expense ratio: 88.1%; rating input score 88
- Fundraising efficiency: $98.01 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 21st percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Pass
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 77th 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: 12%; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.49; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.42; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 3.3%; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 63.4% per year; rating input score 100; 99th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 59.5% per year; rating input score 100; 99th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 53.1% per year; rating input score 100; 99th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 6 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 6 operating locations identified
- Where the money goes: 77.6% of revenue deployed · 88.1% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 4 of 4 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $60.5M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $351K · 17 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $4.9M reported
- Consistency: 35 of 35 current checks pass
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
- Filing history: 4 filing years from 2021 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 12 filed money-flow records
- 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.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 18/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 34/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 42/100.