The Dennis Price Jr Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
933431639
IRS 990 coverage
2024–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2023
Location
Memphis, TN, USA
Phone
9016926516
Rating
53
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Human Service Organizations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$84,257
Expenses
$67,730
Assets
$18,614
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DENNIS PRICE (PRESIDENT)
  • TRACY PRICE (VICE PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • DENNIS PRICE (PRESIDENT)
  • TRACY PRICE (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • COURTNEY PRICE (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 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The Mission of The Dennis Price Jr Foundation is to spread awareness and provide resources in the Greater Memphis area and throughout the country on the heart condition Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy. Providing funding for cardiovascular testing, organizing educational events and resources promoting a healthy lifestyle, granting scholarships for higher education, offering mentorship, and meeting basic needs of the youth in disadvantaged communities to create an environment filled with healthy hearts.

What it reported doing in 2024

The Dennis Price Jr Foundations 2024 accomplishments highlight a year of impactful community service and outreach centered around youth support and heart condition awareness. The foundation launched two DJs Care Closets at Ridgeway Middle and Westwood High School, providing essential supplies to over 450 students. Fundraising events, including cookie sales and DJs Birthday Fundraiser, supported ongoing initiatives. The foundation actively promoted awareness of Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy (HCM) through local media, radio shows, and community events such as the Southern Heritage Classic. Additional events like the Backpack Bash served 700 students with school supplies and hygiene kits, while the Christmas Love Event provided full assistance to a displaced mother and six children. Participation in MSCS interviews, a father-son luncheon, a coat drive, and media interviews helped expand outreach and strengthen community ties.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 86% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

MIXED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 69
  • Transparency & Controls: 57
  • Accountability: 30
  • Sustainability: 53
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 71.3%; rating input score 71
  • Program expense ratio: 88.7%; rating input score 89
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 81.8%; rating input score 82; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 0%; rating input score 0; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 71
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • 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: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 19.6%; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.27; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

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

Details

  • Where the money goes: 71.3% of revenue deployed · 88.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 3 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $60K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 15 of 17 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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 — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 12/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.