Foundation for Appalachian Ohio
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 311620483
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2009–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Nelsonville, OH, USA
- Phone
- 740-753-1111
- Rating
- 68
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Community Foundations
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $26,141,317
- Expenses
- $11,501,492
- Assets
- $128,064,929
- Liabilities
- $8,858,177
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
19 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- HOLLY SHELTON (VICE PRESIDENT)
- CARA BROOK (PRESIDENT/CEO)
Highest reported compensation
- CARA BROOK (PRESIDENT/CEO): $261,547 total reported compensation
- HOLLY SHELTON (VICE PRESIDENT): $179,245 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To create opportunities for Appalachian Ohio's citizens and communities by inspiring and supporting giving.
What it reported doing in 2024
In a region where there are far fewer philanthropic resources available than in the rest of the state, fao has partnered with communities to help them build locally-focused endowment and resources to reinvest in their communities. Led by local on the ground volunteers, these community funds are creating grantmaking dollars where they haven't existed before and are creating new paths for current and former residents to give back. With fao's support and partnership, these funds have developed and implemented outreach strategies, have been fundraising, and many have embarked on their first grantmaking initiatives across their communities.
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 80% of its reported program spending out as grants.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - Most voting board members are independent and program spending has grown recently. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 54
- Transparency & Controls: 58
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 88
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 41.2%; rating input score 41
- Program expense ratio: 72.1%; rating input score 72
- Fundraising efficiency: $28.95 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 94.1%; rating input score 94; 20th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Missing
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 41.9%; rating input score 42; 10th 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; 66th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- 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: 56%; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 11.13; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.07; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 3.8%; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 18.8% per year; rating input score 100; 88th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 17.9% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 17.7% per year; rating input score 100; 86th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 4 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 7 operating locations identified
- Where the money goes: 41.2% of revenue deployed · 72.1% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 15 of 15 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $8.3M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $262K · 19 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $107K reported
- Consistency: 34 of 36 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
- Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 14 filing years from 2009 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 70 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 67 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.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 41/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 42/100.
- 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.