Fort Loudoun Lake Association

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
205909480
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2010–2014
Forms available
Form 990 2013, Form 990-EZ 2014
Location
Knoxville, TN, USA
Phone
8656604244
Rating
71
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Water Resource, Wetlands Conservation and Management

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$130,089
Expenses
$159,378
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DAVID KIGER (PRESIDENT)
  • ANGELA D HOWARD (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

People named in this filing

  • DAVID KIGER (PRESIDENT)
  • NYDA BROOK (DIRECTOR)
  • RICK STONE (TREASURER)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To give people who live, work and recreate on fort loudoun lake a voice in protecting and enhancing the economic benefits and quality of life values of clean water.

What it reported doing in 2014

The organization focused on enhancing the economic benefits, safety and environmental quality of fort loudoun lake and its watershed by cleaning up current pollution and preventing future pollution. The projects involved staff working daily on the lake and in the watershed removing trash and debris, educating the community, and performing hands-on projects addressing water quality.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 69% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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 - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. A relatively small share of total spending goes to programs and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 67
  • Transparency & Controls: 94
  • Sustainability: 3
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 71.9%; rating input score 72
  • Program expense ratio: 58.7%; rating input score 59

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -22.5%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 34.8%; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -10.3% per year; rating input score 0; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -3.6% per year; rating input score 0; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -31.7% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 71.9% of revenue deployed · 58.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $94K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 8 of 8 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2010 to 2014
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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: Program expense ratio scored 59/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 5/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 9/100.