Aerozone Alliance
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 812831612
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2022–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025, Form 990-N 2020
- Location
- Brookpark, OH, USA
- Phone
- 2162727655
- Rating
- 59
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Urban, Community Economic Development
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $593,745
- Expenses
- $416,558
- Assets
- $295,701
- Liabilities
- $5,552
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
20 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- HRISHUE MAHALAHA (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- HRISHUE MAHALAHA (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $234,409 total reported compensation
- MARY J SCHMIDT (DIRECTOR OF BUSINESS ENGAGEMENT): $70,546 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To alleviate unvemployment and to assist and retain local industries in order to strenghten and revitalize the economy and workforce of the communities that surround the cleveland hopkins international airport and nasa glenn research center.
What it reported doing in 2025
The organization has made significant progress in 3 areas (1) business growth and expansion - team conducted business outreach and engagement with 100 businesses in the aerozone. (2) land use planing - aerozone continues a comprehensive land use planning exerxie and created inventory of all developable properties. (3) talent growth - aerozone lauched a series of programs that include job fairs to connect job seekers and local businesses.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Grant-funded. 60% 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
MIXED - Most voting board members are independent and program spending has grown recently. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 50
- Transparency & Controls: 59
- Accountability: 68
- Sustainability: 54
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 43.2%; rating input score 43
- Program expense ratio: 61.4%; rating input score 61
- Fundraising efficiency: $20.12 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 90%; rating input score 90; 7th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Missing
- 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: 2 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 22
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: Fail
- Other executive compensation review process: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 29.8%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.71; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 73.2%; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 13.2% per year; rating input score 100; 67th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 23.1% per year; rating input score 100; 86th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 23.6% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 43.2% of revenue deployed · 61.4% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 20 of 20 board members independent · 2 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $256K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $234K · 20 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 18 of 19 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
- Filing history: 4 filing years from 2022 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 2 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.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 43/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 8 not reported.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 56/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 33/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 0/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 54/100.