Perry County Community Task Force
Legal name: Perry County Community Health Task Force
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 431785839
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2020–2025
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025
- Location
- Perryville, MO, USA
- Phone
- 5735471292
- Rating
- 76
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Federated Giving Programs
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $310,157
- Expenses
- $294,584
- Assets
- $526,745
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
9 people listed
Highest reported compensation
- Brandie Mantz (Former Director/Consultant): $45,226 total reported compensation
- Jessica Behrle (Director): $21,720 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Helping today's youth become tomorrow's leaders
What it reported doing in 2025
The PCCTF conducts an annual DEFY HS Conference (previously known as Junior/Senior Conference); an annual DEFY 8 Conference (previously known as Eighth Grade Conference); and in-school lifeskill programs - DEFY LS and Healthy Alternatives for Little Ones (HALO); and assists other community organizations that have similar missions. Of the DEFY participants 83% stated the program was beneficial for them, 79% stated they are less likely to use as a result of the conferences, and 88% stated others would benefit from attending the program. Of the HALO participants 97% were able to identify healthy and harmful foods and drinks, 95% were able to identify a healthy coping skill and 97% were able to list a way to say NO to negative peer pressure. The in-school programs served approximately 1,535 youth in 2025.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Grant-funded. 93% 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
SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 77
- Transparency & Controls: 65
- Accountability: 90
- Sustainability: 50
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 85.4%; rating input score 85
- Program expense ratio: 89.2%; rating input score 89
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 15th 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: 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: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
- 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: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 5%; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.79; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 22.7%; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 0.9% per year; rating input score 100; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 0.2% per year; rating input score 100; 21st percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 3.4% per year; rating input score 100; 37th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 2 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
- Where the money goes: 85.4% of revenue deployed · 89.2% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $263K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $45K · 9 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 41 of 42 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
- Filing history: 6 filing years from 2020 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 2 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.
Key Signals
Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 47/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
- Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 56/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 16/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.