North Alabama Workforce Development Council Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
471625151
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2020
Forms available
Form 990 2020
Location
Muscle Shoals, AL, USA
Phone
2564360411
Rating
66
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Employment Procurement Assistance

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$332,653
Expenses
$296,120
Assets
$53,939
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

26 people listed

People named in this filing

  • JULIA LANG ACKERMAN (DIRECTOR)
  • RONNIE BOLES (TREASURER)
  • KERRI BRACKEN (DIRECTOR)

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 2020. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

North Alabama works is a workforce council made up of leaders from business and industry, education and econcomic development representing the 13-county region. The council provides a direct link to the workforce needs of b&i and coordinates education, training and job placement services.

What it reported doing in 2020

Provide a trained workforce focused around north Alabama's business and industry requirements. The purpose of the regional workforce develepment system is to facilitate the establishment and implementation of a comprehensive, coordinated, seamless workforce development system for the region that supports economic development and workforce training activities.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 88% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
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: 51
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 82
  • Sustainability: 46
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 51.7%; rating input score 52
  • Program expense ratio: 58.1%; rating input score 58
  • Fundraising efficiency: $8.22 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings

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: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 57
    • 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: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 11%; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.18; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

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

Details

  • Where the money goes: 51.7% of revenue deployed · 58.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 25 of 25 board members independent · 4 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $172K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 26 people listed
  • Consistency: 22 of 22 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 52/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 58/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 28/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 7/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 54/100.