Appalachian Alternative Agriculture of Jackson County Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
371420944
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2016
Forms available
Form 990 2016
Location
Mc Kee, KY, USA
Phone
6062877693
Rating
67
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Agricultural Programs

Reported finances

Revenue
$39,089
Expenses
$73,306
Assets
$450,159
Liabilities
$6,132

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CARLOS CAMERON (PRESIDENT)
  • REBECCA KOURY (VICE-PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • CARLOS CAMERON (PRESIDENT)
  • REBECCA KOURY (VICE-PRESIDENT)
  • CATHY HOWELL (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 2016. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Provide facilities to allow farmers

What it reported doing in 2016

To provide a place and resource for farmers to help them in marketing their crops and goods

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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 74
  • Transparency & Controls: 63
  • Accountability: 82
  • Sustainability: 36
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 55.9%; rating input score 56
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 57
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -87.5%; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 6.14; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

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

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 55.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 4 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $41K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 19 of 20 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes grants
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 56/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 20/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 54/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 31/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.