Appalachian Forest Heritage Area Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
200815517
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Elkins, WV, USA
Phone
3046366182
Rating
81
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Rural Economic Development

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,396,416
Expenses
$1,402,224
Assets
$577,478
Liabilities
$181,419

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

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Logan Smith (Executive Director)
  • David McGill (Vice President)
  • Robert Johnson (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Logan Smith (Executive Director): $64,792 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The Appalachian Forest Heritage Area integrates central Appalachian forest history, culture, natural history, products, and forestry management into a heritage tourism initiative to promote rural community development.

What it reported doing in 2024

AFNHA AmeriCorps deployed 30 National Service members throughout the state West Virginia to support organizations serving within the themes of Conservation, and Heritage for Community Development. Members provided over 51,000 hours of service to 27 sites. Conservation service specifically included activities such as watershed restoration, environmental education, non-native species management, field data collection, tree planting, trail building and maintenance, environmental recreation support, among others. Heritage members supported museums, cultural centers for music and the arts, and hands on Historic Preservation. Community Development members supported organizations such as welcome centers, municipalities, boards, and foundations. All service members provided support for volunteer management activities for their sites and added greatly to the volunteer capacity and output of their specific organizations. AC members managed over 312 unique volunteers for their sponsoring sites in 2024, increasing capacity for their site. Members provided direct service resulting in the improvement of public lands.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 75% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 90% 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

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 80
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 31
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 90.1%; rating input score 90
  • Program expense ratio: 89.7%; rating input score 90
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 86.7%; rating input score 87; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 83.5%; rating input score 83; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -0.4%; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.41; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.31; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.6%; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 14.8% per year; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 12.2% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 21% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 90.1% of revenue deployed · 89.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $1.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $65K · 13 people listed
  • Consistency: 44 of 46 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2020 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 13 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 12 filed related-organization links
  • 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 34/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 19/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 24/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 54/100.