Utility Economic Development Association
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 010579984
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2011–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2022
- Location
- Little Rock, AR, USA
- Phone
- 5019045228
- Rating
- 32
- Verdict
- REVIEW
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Chambers of Commerce & Business Leagues
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $355,738
- Expenses
- $322,601
- Assets
- $271,156
- Liabilities
- $116,713
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
16 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- KELLY PATTON (Past President)
- ALBA WEAVER (President)
- ERIC WHITFIELD (Vice President)
People named in this filing
- ANGELA ROGERS (Executive Dir.)
- JEFF MAYES (Director)
- JESSICA HILL (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 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Provide educational and networking opportunities for economic development of certain utilities
What it reported doing in 2025
Spring forum was held april 7 through 10, 2025, in houston, tx. Session topics included "current state of the economy", "a site selection perspective on data centers and power", "how data centers are shaping utlity strategies", "maximizing scarce resources", "unlocking new site opportunities panel","state engagement on load growth: unlocking critical conversations to meet energy needs","how the greater houston partnership forges unique organizational alliances and ensuring optimal outcomes for energy related initiatives".fall forum was held october 20 though 23, 2025 in traverse city, mi. Session topics included "current state of the economy", "historical load growth-planning for the future", "how data center development is affecting manufacturing projects", "ai and the future of utility-led economic development", "defy and deliver: strengthening emotional resilience in your team", and "future in site selection".in addition to educational programming, both forums included board meetings, membership committee meetings, and peer-to-peer discussions designed to facilitate collaberation, knowledge sharing, and best practice development among participants.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 100% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- 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
REVIEW - The filed numbers largely add up and revenue has grown recently. 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: 90
- Accountability: 0
- Sustainability: 46
- Growth: 60
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: 0%; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 0 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 0
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Fail
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 9.3%; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.84; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.43; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -40.5% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 3.3% per year; rating input score 100; 38th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 1.5% per year; rating input score 100; 28th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 0 of 16 board members independent · 0 of 7 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 16 people listed
- Consistency: 10 of 11 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 1 filed schedules
- Filing history: 8 filing years from 2011 to 2025
- 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.
- High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
- High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 6 not reported.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 55/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 36/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 10/100.