Lake Erie Energy Development Corporation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
272238400
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2022
Forms available
Form 990 2022
Location
Cleveland, OH, USA
Phone
2162843232
Rating
60
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Economic Development

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$182,052
Expenses
$117,003
Assets
$94,033
Liabilities
$6,904,853

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2022. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • William D Friedman (President)

People named in this filing

  • William D Friedman (President)
  • Ronald B Richard (Board Chairman)
  • Steve Dever (Board Member)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2022. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

LEEDCo is a regional non-profit and economic development organization building an offshore wind energy industry in Ohio.

What it reported doing in 2022

A major step in pursuit of LEEDCo's mission to build the offshore wind industry in northeast Ohio is to develop an initial demonstration project in Lake Erie. This project, known as Icebreaker Wind, will consist of six, approximately 3.5 MW wind turbines located 8 miles offshore of downtown Cleveland. It will serve as an environmental data collection center and provide a model for responsible offshore wind development in Lake Erie. The experience and data collected through this project will help identify best practices, refine the engineering innovations, validate the environmental conditions, guide siting for future projects, and ultimately lower the cost of energy.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 93% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% 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 - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. 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: 29
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 88
  • Sustainability: 59
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 27.3%; rating input score 27
  • Program expense ratio: 42.4%; rating input score 42
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • 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: 5 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 71
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: 35.7%; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.8; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 73.43; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -17.9% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -6.1% per year; rating input score 0; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -11.8% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 27.3% of revenue deployed · 42.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $50K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 9 people listed
  • Consistency: 21 of 21 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2011 to 2022
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 27/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 42/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 33/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.