Lowcountry Economic Alliance Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
300512691
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2014
Forms available
Form 990 2014
Location
Beaufort, SC, USA
Phone
8434703502
Rating
49
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Chambers of Commerce & Business Leagues

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$246,483
Expenses
$269,913
Assets
$118,787
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • Kim Statler (Executive Dir.): $68,398 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The Alliance's mission is to position and market Beaufort County to compete successfully for global business investment.

What it reported doing in 2014

The Lowcountry Economic Alliance: markets the Lowcountry Region to targeted business sectors; Supports the economic development activities of both public and private sector organizations within the Region; Builds cohesive relationships among and between the Regions public and private sectors; Cooperates with Federal, State and Local economic development organizations and activities; Works to solicit resources that further the mission and vision of the Organization; Works to build synergistic systems and teams to address the workforce deficiencies found in the region; Works to identify and promote policies that support the need for affordable workforce housing in the region; Educates local, state and federal officials of critical economic development issues for their consideration as new policies and laws are considered and developed; Engages in such other lawful activities in the furtherance of its mission as the Board of Directors finds appropriate.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 100% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

MIXED - 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: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Accountability: 79
  • Sustainability: 32
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
  • 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: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: -9.5%; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.44; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5.2%; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 4.5% per year; rating input score 100; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -32.4% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 14 of 14 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $270K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $68K · 14 people listed
  • Consistency: 9 of 10 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2011 to 2014
  • 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 22/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 24/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 40/100.