The Greater Cincinnati and Northern Kentucky African American Chamber of Co

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
311504758
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2018
Forms available
Form 990 2018
Location
Cincinnati, OH, USA
Phone
5137519900
Rating
68
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$838,340
Expenses
$826,774
Assets
$181,814
Liabilities
$226,266

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2018. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

17 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Eric Kearney (President/CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • Eric Kearney (President/CEO): $106,681 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2018. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Chamber's Mission is to establish, cultivate, and strengthen consumer and business relationships; and to provide access to major corporate markets for our members.To preserve and increase Job in community. To help increase business opportunities; and assist in developing strategic partnerships and alliances with businesses.

What it reported doing in 2018

The City contract supports monthly networking after hours to pay for a presenter and AACC organizational time, which average 25 participants. It also supports the Sudduth Program, which had 2 classes with average 10 participants during the year. The Sudduth Program is a an advanced business development platform for high potential minority businesses. Sudduth participants hone their business skills through educational discussions with industry experts to enhance skills and increase the business owner's ability to meet the demands of larger clients and sustaining growth. City funds also supports the weekly Rise to Shine radio program. During calendar year, ___clients were counseled/coached, 1,484 attended training sessions,--- new jobs were developed, and ---retained. AACC helped minority business owners obtain new businesses, totalling $30,000 during 2017.

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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 56
  • Transparency & Controls: 70
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 27
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 60.8%; rating input score 61
  • Program expense ratio: 61.7%; rating input score 62
  • Fundraising efficiency: $4 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • 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: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 1.4%; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.22; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 1.24; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 12.9%; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 4% per year; rating input score 100; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6.3% per year; rating input score 100; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 0.1% per year; rating input score 100; 29th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 60.8% of revenue deployed · 61.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 16 of 16 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments
  • Leadership: top reported pay $107K · 17 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 30 of 31 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2013 to 2018
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 2 filed related-organization links
  • 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

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: Fundraising efficiency scored 15/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 42/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 11/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D revenue reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 5/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 26/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.