Evergreen Cooperative Corporation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
452743815
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Cleveland, OH, USA
Phone
2162981182
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Urban, Community Economic Development

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,700,663
Expenses
$1,057,012
Assets
$11,273,191
Liabilities
$39,662

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • John McMicken (Chief Executive Officer)

People named in this filing

  • Andrea Kanter Grodin (Board Member)
  • Julie Rehm (Board Member)
  • Ann Conn (Board Member)

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 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

1. to promote, coordinate, and expand economic opportunity and wealth building through a network of community-based enterprises 2. to promote community stabilization and revitalization of the disinvested neighborhoods of Cleveland 3. to promote public understanding of cooperative

What it reported doing in 2024

Compensation for key management with respect to Evergreen Business Services, Inc., Evergreen Cooperative Development Fund, LLC and other start-up cooperative ventures. Key management is charged with the responsibility to share their knowledge regarding cooperative ownership, capital planning and budgets, strategic planning, the importance and roles of company board of directors and committees, and other important business concepts with the board, staff, and employees of the cooperative companies. Former workers had the opportunity to apply for the jobs. The workers are eligible to become members of the cooperative association after 12 months employment and share in the profits of the company.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.

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: 59
  • Transparency & Controls: 89
  • Accountability: 82
  • Sustainability: 87
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 54%; rating input score 54
  • Program expense ratio: 86.8%; rating input score 87
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 84.6%; rating input score 85; 2nd 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: Yes; rating input score 100

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 37.8%; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 10.67; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -2.8% per year; rating input score 0; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 11.9% per year; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 11.7% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 54% of revenue deployed · 86.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 4 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $918K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 20 of 22 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and related organizations
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2013 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • Related organizations: 2 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 54/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • 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.