Southern Mississippi Planning and Development District

Legal name: Southern Ms Planning & Development District Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
640441554
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Gulfport, MS, US
Phone
228-868-2311
Rating
84
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$46,060,210
Expenses
$43,581,893
Assets
$48,879,356
Liabilities
$4,023,368

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

44 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • BOBBY BOLTON (2ND VICE PRESIDENT)
  • DAVID HOGAN (1ST VICE PRESIDENT)
  • CALVIN NEWSOME (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • LEONARD BENTZ II (EXEC. DIRECTOR): $388,603 total reported compensation
  • JENNIFER BELL (CFO): $193,608 total reported compensation
  • ALLISON HAWKINS (HCE): $156,663 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Southern Mississippi Planning & Development District connects individuals, businesses, and industries to agencies that provide help and funding for programs for seniors and disabled, job seekers resources, business loan programs, economic development and community development tools, and technical assistance and planning assistance.

What it reported doing in 2024

Workforce development - wioa, through funding from the u.s. Department of labor (us dol), provided employment and educational training services to 2,690 participants. Among those serviced, 275 participants received individual training accounts (itas) that were funded at a total amount of $847,880.31. Ita funds assist participants with their educational costs. There were 65 individuals enrolled in on-the-job (ojt) training, at a total amount of $562,980.92. Ojt funds help businesses offset training costs and customize the training to their specific needs. In addition, 369 youth were enrolled in twin districts workforce development area's in-school and out-of-school youth programs. Ms works, through funding from acceleratems, provided training services to 328 participants, at a total of $956,466.81.scsep, through funding from the center for workforce inclusion, and the ms department of employment security, provided community service and training services to low income people through the senior community service employment program. There were 54 enrolled in the program, and they received 34,838.75 hours of employment training.high school career coach- through funding from acceleratems and the ms department of employment security, as the fiscal agent, smpdd has hired 41 high school career coaches, which serve students in 47 high schools, within 21 counties. The career coach program is a students' connection to career information, options, education, training and opportunities.tanf career step, through funding from the Mississippi department human services, served 346 participants. The career step program connects individuals with multiple barriers to coaching, training, and support services that will place them on a path to self-sufficiency.re-entry programs - prepares offenders housed at regional facilities and re-entry centers for a successful return to employment, and a reduction in recidivism. Smpdd's re-entry programs include:1- restore accelerated re-entry program (arp), funded through acceleratems, served 43 participants. 2- pathwayhome5, funded through the u.s. Department of labor, served 103 participants. 3- partners for re-entry opportunities in workforce development (prowd), funded through the ms department of employment security, served 13 participants.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 94% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 66% for direct work, and 34% for grants.

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 expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 83
  • Transparency & Controls: 84
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 56
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 92.4%; rating input score 92
  • Program expense ratio: 97.3%; rating input score 97
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Pass
    • 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 5.4%; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.12; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.08; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 1.7%; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 6.2% per year; rating input score 100; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.3% per year; rating input score 100; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6.7% per year; rating input score 100; 47th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 5 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 92.4% of revenue deployed · 97.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 41 of 41 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 10 filed program accomplishments · $42.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $389K · 44 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $14.2M reported
  • Consistency: 31 of 31 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 55/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 40/100.