Growing Power Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
391876495
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2015
Forms available
Form 990 2015
Location
Milwaukee, WI, USA
Phone
4145271546
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Public Utilities

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,817,974
Expenses
$3,541,160
Assets
$1,567,930
Liabilities
$1,331,742

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • WILLIAM ALLEN (CEO)
  • ARIEL KAUFMAN (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • WILLIAM ALLEN (CEO): $112,107 total reported compensation
  • KAREN PARKER (DIRECTOR): $65,000 total reported compensation
  • HOLLY WIESE (FINANCE MANAGER): $44,423 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Growing Power is a national nonprofit organization and land trust supporting people from diverse backgrounds, and the environment in which they live, by helping provide equal access to healthy food

What it reported doing in 2015

Growing Power supports the development and sustainability of community based food systems by helping provide equal access to healthy, high-quality, safe and affordable food for people in all communities. Growing Power implements this mission by providing hands on training, on-the-ground demonstration, outreach and technical assistance through the development of community food systems that help people grow, process, market and distribute food in a sustainable manner.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 97% 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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 91
  • Transparency & Controls: 74
  • Accountability: 91
  • Sustainability: 14
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 77.8%; rating input score 78
  • Fundraising efficiency: $88.94 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 87.5%; rating input score 88; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 48.8%; rating input score 49; 14th 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; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -25.7%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.44; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.85; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 6.3%; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -33.7% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -10.9% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -41.3% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 77.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2.8M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $112K · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 27 of 29 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2013 to 2015
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 7 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

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 — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 49/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 4/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 21/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset 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.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 12/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 38/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.