Coastal Resources Group

Legal name: Coastal Resources Group Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
542138903
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2024
Official website data refreshed
Jul 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2012
Location
Sarasota, FL, US
Phone
1-855-588-2100
Rating
58
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Natural Resources Conservation and Protection

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$111,430
Expenses
$90,629
Assets
$3,782,716
Liabilities
$3,557,604

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • PAMELA FETTERMAN (PRSIDENT, TREASURER, DIRECTOR): $23,963 total reported compensation
  • CURTIS KRUER (VP, SECRETARY, DIRECTOR): $7,912 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Advancing natural resources restoration and management to support a sustained and resilient Florida coast.

What it reported doing in 2024

Crg/krf continues to work with the u.s. Army corps of engineers to develop projects funded by monies in trust to offset wetland impacts in the Florida keys. Program funding received during 2023 and 2024 is currently being planned for 2 additional projects in the Florida keys for the restoration of the environment. These projects will provide educational opportunities for visiting pennekamp state park and johnson tract in sugarloaf key.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 99% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
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

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and revenue comfortably covers expenses. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 45
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 34
  • Sustainability: 64
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 46.9%; rating input score 47
  • Program expense ratio: 58.3%; rating input score 58
  • 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: 50%; rating input score 50; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 18.7%; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 41.74; rating input score 98; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.94; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 35.2%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -0% per year; rating input score 0; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 10.7% per year; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 8 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 2 operating locations identified
  • Where the money goes: 46.9% of revenue deployed · 58.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 2 of 4 board members independent · 1 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $53K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $24K · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 23 of 23 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2013 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 47/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 7 not reported.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 58/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 50/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 6/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 8/100.