African Development Center

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
200553370
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Minneapolis, MN, USA
Phone
6123334772
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Family Services

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$4,603,972
Expenses
$1,839,252
Assets
$24,797,186
Liabilities
$9,795,253

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

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JO ANN VANO (BOARD PRESIDENT)
  • NASIBU SAREVA (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • NASIBU SAREVA (CEO): $230,592 total reported compensation
  • FELICIA RAVELOMANATSOA (CFO): $137,213 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Grow businesses, build wealth and increase reinvestement in the african communities of Minnesota

What it reported doing in 2024

Adc's culturally competent business development services and its partnerships with crucial funding sources have directly contributed to the surge in african-owned businesses throughout Minnesota. In addition to ongoing technical assistance, adc has an entrepreneurial training class for clients looking to start a completely new business. Adc made 74 loans in 2024 with a total approved loan amount of $7,439,029 and they leveraged over $10 million. From our 2024 loans, 178.5 jobs have been retained and 133 new jobs have been created. The great majority of these loans and jobs created and retained are black-owned and operated small businesses. 96% of our loan dollars went to black-owned businesses and 47% went to women-owned businesses.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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 - 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 reported officer compensation is a large share of total spending, which may reflect staffing concentration.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 59
  • Transparency & Controls: 77
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 76
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 36.8%; rating input score 37
  • Program expense ratio: 88.1%; rating input score 88
  • Fundraising efficiency: $61.46 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 60.1%; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 13.48; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.4; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 20%; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 11.6% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 14.5% per year; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 15.7% per year; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 36.8% of revenue deployed · 88.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.6M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $231K · 13 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 31 of 31 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 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.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 37/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 12/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 27/100.