Foundation for Appalachian Kentucky Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
611329396
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Hazard, KY, USA
Phone
6064391357
Rating
86
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Community Foundations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$8,397,592
Expenses
$9,139,705
Assets
$33,062,397
Liabilities
$1,538,209

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Kristin Collins (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Kristin Collins (Executive Director): $87,350 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Our mission is to be a catalyst for community collaboration and charitable giving; to create permanent endowment funds as a sustaining resource to improve quality of life and place in eastern Kentucky.

What it reported doing in 2024

During the past year, the Foundation: (1) continued to operate and establish a well-grounded, well-known and well-regarded office and staff in the heart of the southeastern Kentucky coal fields while establishing and participating in regional initiatives to transition to a diverse economy as the coal industry continues to decline; (2) met national standards for US community foundations as set forth by the Community Foundations National Standards Board at the National Council on Foundations; (3) provided fiscal and administrative sponsorships for numerous organizations; and (4) provided leadership and support to the Appalachia Funders Network, a collaborative of public and private funders working together to build community capacity and promote an equitable economic transition into new and emerging sectors as the coal industry continues to decline.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 82% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 67% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 79
  • Transparency & Controls: 93
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 48
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 87.6%; rating input score 88
  • Program expense ratio: 79.3%; rating input score 79
  • Fundraising efficiency: $9.44 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 90.5%; rating input score 90; 26th 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: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • 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: -8.8%; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.62; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.05; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 1%; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 24.6% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 18.7% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 17.4% per year; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 87.6% of revenue deployed · 79.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $7.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $87K · 12 people listed
  • Consistency: 33 of 34 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 91 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 45 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 36/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 15/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Document-retention policy not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.