Electric Cooperatives of Mississippi (Aal)
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 640200697
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2009–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Ridgeland, MS, USA
- Phone
- 6016058600
- Rating
- 43
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $10,867,608
- Expenses
- $9,773,975
- Assets
- $11,298,162
- Liabilities
- $1,707,600
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
33 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- BRIAN HUGHEY (PRESIDENT)
Highest reported compensation
- MICHAEL CALLAHAN (EXECUTIVE VP): $481,155 total reported compensation
- PAUL PURNELL (VP- GOVT. RE): $260,806 total reported compensation
- STEVE WILLIAMS (NETWORK ENGI): $244,427 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Electric cooperative of Mississippi (ecm) helps its members provide affordable, reliable electricity to mississippians by building support around governmental and business leaders and by delivering shared services that are mutually beneficial. Ecm enables its members to achieve greater measures of strength and success by combining voices to tell the story of the value of rural electric cooperatives.
What it reported doing in 2024
Ecm's comminication's department publishes a monthly magazine that writes about the people and places that make Mississippi a special place to live. The magazine educates and informs members of Mississippi's electric cooperatives with the latest news regarding their cooperatives. The department also supports a leadership program for high school students in Mississippi, which includes a 3 day workshop and a trip to Washington dc. Students meet legislators, tour monuments, and learn about electric cooperatives.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 81% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- Distribution model
- Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.
The verdict
MIXED - Most voting board members are independent and the filed numbers largely add up. 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: 0
- Transparency & Controls: 60
- Accountability: 95
- Sustainability: 52
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
- Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 4th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- 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; 66th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Other executive compensation review process: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 10.1%; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.16; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.15; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 17.7%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: 4% per year; rating input score 100; 35th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 3.6% per year; rating input score 100; 26th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 26 of 26 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments
- Leadership: top reported pay $481K · 33 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $1.6M reported
- Consistency: 13 of 15 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
- Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes executive pay
- Filing history: 14 filing years from 2009 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 7 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 7 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.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D land buildings reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 41/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 5/100.