Pinal Alliance for Economic Growth

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
860482868
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Glendale, AZ, USA
Rating
48
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$128,450
Expenses
$147,145
Assets
$39,904
Liabilities
$500

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

Leadership & pay

20 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DONOVAN KRAMER (PRESIDENT)
  • CRAIG MCFARLAND (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • ADAM LECKIE (2nd VICE PRESIDENT)
  • LISA FITZGIBBONS (VICE PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • DONOVAN KRAMER (PRESIDENT)
  • CRAIG MCFARLAND (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • RONA CURPHY Jr (TREASURER)

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 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Promotion of economic development of pinal county

What it reported doing in 2025

Primary activity is workforce development, early elementary literacy development. Provide services and technical assistance to industries interested in relocating or expanding in central Arizona, including confidential consultations, site location information and assistance, customized research on specific business questions, representation in zoning and building permit approval process, private and public financing and job training assistance, support of local business expansions and international trade and joint venture partnerships.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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 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: 85
  • Sustainability: 24
  • Growth: 0

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; 64th 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: 95%; rating input score 95; 28th 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: -14.6%; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.27; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -37.7% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -12.1% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -16.8% 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: 19 of 20 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 20 people listed
  • Consistency: 10 of 11 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 15/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 15/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 38/100.