Albia Community Betterment Corporation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
421097946
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Albia, IA, USA
Phone
6419322144
Rating
46
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Rural Economic Development

Reported finances

Revenue
$4,921
Expenses
$2,685
Assets
$1,147,319
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Kevin Kness (President)

People named in this filing

  • Kevin Kness (President)
  • Daniel D Stocker (Secretary/Treasurer)
  • Steve Rockwell (Director)

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 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Our purpose is to promote residential home development in the City of Albia. We have purchased land and subdivided it into residential lots for sale. Occasionally, we have promoted spec home construction by offering a buyback program for contractors. This provides a safety net to the contractor that allows them to recoup their costs in a project after a one year time frame. Over the years, we have donated limited funds to community projects. 100% of our time and funds are spent on these types of activities.

What it reported doing in 2025

Our purpose is to promote residential home development in the City of Albia. We have purchased land and subdivided it into residential lots for sale. Currently, we have a tract of ground identified as Country View Subdivision. This has two phases completed with room to develop two more phases. We currently have 10 lots to sell in Country View between Plat I and II. Additionally, we have a contractor buy back program. If a contractor is unable to sell a spec home within 12 months it is purchased from them. The price that is paid for the home is negotiated before the contractor buys the lot. The price is based on the contractor's costs with no profit being paid.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 88% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

MIXED - 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 a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 3
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 84
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 3.1%; rating input score 3
  • Program expense ratio: 3.7%; rating input score 4
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 45.4%; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 427.31; rating input score 99; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -2.7% per year; rating input score 0; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: -0.7% per year; rating input score 0; 33rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 3.1% of revenue deployed · 3.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $100 in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 13 of 13 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2020 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 3/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 4/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 58/100.