Servicemember Agricultural Vocation Education Corp

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
810734441
IRS 990 coverage
2017–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Riley, KS, USA
Phone
7857751212
Rating
68
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Military, Veterans' Organizations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$440,144
Expenses
$388,661
Assets
$786,334
Liabilities
$4,000

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ERIC PECK (CHAIRMAN/CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • ERIC PECK (CHAIRMAN/CEO): $6,175 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To provide a training farm, assist servicemembers and veterans to transition, to find purpose and meaning in life and enable them to learn valuable vocational skills to meet the demand for agricultural ownership, employment, or other advanced schooling. Facilitate healing for those in need and place those trained on working farms.

What it reported doing in 2024

Save provides occupational agricultural training and agritherapy and healing to a significant number of veterans, servicemembers and family members on a training farm near fort riley and Kansas state university. The save farm produced wheat, soybeans, lavender and prairie hay. A large garden plot was prepared and fenced, several head of cattle were grazed and bred. Farm equipment is in place and donors have pledged most of the animals, facilities and equipment needed for operations and training. The farm began programs in controlled environment agriculture to include a fodder box grow system capable of producing 500 pounds of fodder per day. A new 50x60 multipurpose building was constructed for use in vocational training and for construction of tiny houses for veterans. Save continued its ks board of regents approved sustainable ag 5 month courses.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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: 49
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 74
  • Sustainability: 57
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 56.4%; rating input score 56
  • Program expense ratio: 54.3%; rating input score 54
  • 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: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: 11.7%; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.02; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 1.6%; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -6.5% per year; rating input score 0; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.1% per year; rating input score 100; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 15.1% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 56.4% of revenue deployed · 54.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 11 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $211K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $6K · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 26 of 26 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2017 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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 56/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 54/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 59/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 36/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 50/100.