Iowa Area Development Group Community Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
830361044
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2010
Location
Des Moines, IA, USA
Phone
5152234817
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Community Foundations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$475,985
Expenses
$283,243
Assets
$3,791,945
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DOUGLAS H AEILTS (PRESIDENT)
  • JACOB OLBERDING (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • BRUCE NUZUM (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • BRUCE NUZUM (CEO): $378,244 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The mission of the Iowa area development group community foundation is to foster economic development and community betterment by providing public policy research and promotion; education and training; and community based and guided philanthropy.

What it reported doing in 2025

Conducting leadership development programs and seminars in order to educate electric cooperative members, community volunteers and professional developers about tools, resources, and technical assistance in order to further local economic developmental efforts. Resources will also be used to undertake and/or support research, study, and analysis of the economy or segments of the economy of the state of Iowa in order to encourage local economic developmental efforts.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 80% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 69% for direct work, and 31% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 82
  • Transparency & Controls: 57
  • Accountability: 71
  • Sustainability: 78
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 87.3%; rating input score 87
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 81.8%; rating input score 82; 1st 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: 85.2%; rating input score 85; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 85.7%; rating input score 86; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 40.5%; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 13.39; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 35.1%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 17.1% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8.3% per year; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 11.9% per year; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 87.3% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 7 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $283K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $378K · 8 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 13 of 15 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2011 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • 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: Officer compensation ratio scored 8/100.