Agricultural Leadership Foundation of Hawaii

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
990218901
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Kailua, HI, USA
Phone
8089472914
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$370,368
Expenses
$227,092
Assets
$1,385,117
Liabilities
$3,817

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DIANE LEY (PRESIDENT)
  • MELISSA RHODEN (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • MARK STOUTEMYER (PAST PRESIDENT)
  • CHRISTINE BRAMMER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • CHRISTINE BRAMMER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $104,466 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The agricultural leadership foundation of Hawaii was established to develop and support effective leaders in the agricultural industry and rural communities through a multi-disciplinary leadership training program. This program was desgined to expand the participant's access to beneficial resources, build confidence, enhance leadership skills, and broaden the participant's perspective of statewide agriculture and shared common problems.

What it reported doing in 2025

Youth leadership program -- the foundation supports the involvement of youth in agriculture by providing scholarships and other support that allows interested students in Hawaii ag programs to take part in leadership development opportunities such as the Hawaii agriculture conference.

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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 56
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 71
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 55.6%; rating input score 56
  • Program expense ratio: 74.7%; rating input score 75
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • 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: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • 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: 38.7%; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 6.1; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 46%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 7.3% per year; rating input score 100; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6.3% per year; rating input score 100; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.6% per year; rating input score 100; 46th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 55.6% of revenue deployed · 74.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $170K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $104K · 12 people listed
  • Consistency: 24 of 24 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 56/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 4/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 47/100.