Kentucky Ag Development Advocacy Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
922486355
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2024–2024
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2024
Location
Park City, KY, USA
Phone
2705974644
Rating
42
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$127,547
Expenses
$127,546
Assets
$1
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

1 person listed

People named in this filing

  • Earlene Garnett (Trustee)

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 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Kentucky Agriculture Development Advocacy KADA Inc is structured as a 501c4 nonprofit organization to align with its mission of promoting social welfare through agricultural conservation education and advocacy

What it reported doing in 2024

Kentucky Ag Development Advocacy KADA Inc a 501c4 nonprofit organization has made significant progress in advancing agricultural conservation and equity through programs and regional outreach Over the past year KADA developed a specialty crop training curriculum tailored for small-scale farmers launched a statewide biochar project to improve soil health and conservation outcomes and hosted workshops field days and webinars focused on regenerative agriculture and sustainable enviromentally safe practices The organization also provided one-on-one technical assistance to underserved producers helping them navigate USDA programs and implement sustainable practices Through strategic partnerships and multi-state collaboration KADA continues to expand its impact ensuring that conservation education and resources reach communities that have historically been left out of agricultural development efforts

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Sustainability: 33
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 0%; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 1 people listed
  • Consistency: 8 of 9 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part III transfer expenses within program total did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 34/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 2/100.