Clinton County Catalyst

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
260412041
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2011–2025
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2025
Location
St Johns, MI, USA
Phone
5176691345
Rating confidence
Limited
Sector
Business and Industry

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$155,836
Expenses
$146,747
Assets
$43,068
Liabilities
$4,003

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

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

People named in this filing

  • MARIAH HESSE (TRUSTEE)
  • KURT HANUS (VICE CHAIRMA)
  • CRAIG BISHOP (BOARD CHAIRM)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

Our mission is to help our members and the rest of the community achieve success with each new endeavor. On top of being the countys leading networking resource, we are a catalyst for change sparking conversations about economic growth in clinton county, Michigan.

What it reported doing in 2025

Clinton county catalyst is a non-profit, public-private organization, dedicated to enhancing the economic vitality of clinton county. Ccc is funded entirely by its membership which includes businesses, educational institutions, and municipalities. We are governed by a board of directors and executive committee comprised of investors throughout clinton county and mid-Michigan. As the lead, county-wide economic development agency, we partner with local, regional, state, and federal organizations to provide sustainable and value-added services for business attraction, retention and growth, workforce development, and next-generation initiatives. When a new project is underway for a local organization, we get the right partners involved.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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

- The available evidence is not sufficient to produce an overall rating for this filing. This is not a warning sign.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: NotEnoughData
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 32
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: Limited
  • Program expense ratio: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 5.8%; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.29; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.09; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 62.9%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 0.1% per year; rating input score 100; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -8.3% per year; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 15 people listed
  • Consistency: 6 of 6 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 1 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2011 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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 — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 46/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 26/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 2/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 21/100.