Phillips County Chamber of Commerce

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
710140375
IRS 990 coverage
2019–2023
Forms available
Form 990 2023
Location
West Helena, AR, USA
Rating
58
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$131,541
Expenses
$35,944
Assets
$917,184
Liabilities
$3,864

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JOHN DALENCOURT (PRESIDENT)
  • HARVEY WILLIAMS (PRESIDENT)
  • MISSY ISHMAEL (VICE PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • LINDA PATTERSON (BOARD MEMBER)
  • THOMAS JACKSON II (BOARD MEMBER)
  • BEN PITTMAN (BOARD MEMBER)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The chamber works to enable phillips co to reach its full economic potential by promoting, advocating for, and supporting existing businesses and the strategic development of new ventures that capitalize on our communitys unique assets to maximize econ growth and quality of life

What it reported doing in 2023

Business retention and expansion-the chamber normally offered a wide array of services to promote, support, and advocate on behalf of existing businesses to help them survive, thrive and grow. A dangerous mold exposure in the chamber building prohibited using the building most of the year.again this year, the mold issue in the building prevented active participation in this area although some communication and interaction continued local businesses.

Operating model

Revenue model
Investment-supported. 94% of the money available for current operations came from recurring investment income.
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

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 20
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 76
  • Sustainability: 89
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 11.7%; rating input score 12
  • Program expense ratio: 40.4%; rating input score 40
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

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: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 43
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: 72.7%; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 25.52; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -30.2% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.9% per year; rating input score 100; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4.7% per year; rating input score 100; 47th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 11.7% of revenue deployed · 40.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $15K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 7 people listed
  • Consistency: 22 of 22 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2019 to 2023
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 12/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 40/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 53/100.