Applegate Partnership Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
931151372
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2014
Location
Jacksonville, OR, USA
Phone
5418999982
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Water Resource, Wetlands Conservation and Management

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,198,162
Expenses
$1,157,997
Assets
$218,466
Liabilities
$10,143

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JANELLE DUNLEVY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • JANELLE DUNLEVY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $88,992 total reported compensation
  • CHARLES ROGERS (BOARD MEMBER): $400 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Promote ecosystem helath across the applegate watershed thro ugh education & restoration carried out in ptrship w/ landow ners, agencies & other interested parties contributing to th e local economy & community.

What it reported doing in 2025

Upper applegate all-lands wildfire resiliency project - over the past two years the project has supported private landowners across the applegate valley with wildfire risk mitigation through mechanical fuels treatments. This project was borne out of funding from the odof small forestland grant and has been supplemented w/ additional funding from a us forest service su stainable n.w grant. To date, 185 acres have been treated for fuels, w/ 822 hazard trees removed and processed, and efforts will continue in 2026. As the result of a request for proposal period, fuels reduction management company burnbot has been selected to carry out treatments going forward. This project represents how landowner outreach and engagement can lead to partnerships that create landscape level wildfire risk reduction.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 80% 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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 78
  • Transparency & Controls: 78
  • Accountability: 79
  • Sustainability: 32
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 87.3%; rating input score 87
  • Program expense ratio: 90.4%; rating input score 90
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 86.7%; rating input score 87; 3rd 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: 3.4%; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.19; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.05; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 7.7%; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 13.5% per year; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 15.2% per year; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4.3% per year; rating input score 100; 32nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 87.3% of revenue deployed · 90.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments
  • Leadership: top reported pay $89K · 12 people listed
  • Consistency: 24 of 25 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2015 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 40/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 10/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D other liabilities reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 44/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 44/100.