Deer Lake Association of Itasca County

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
411853300
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2015, Form 990-N 2019
Location
Minneapolis, MN, USA
Phone
9522329567
Rating
81
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Water Resource, Wetlands Conservation and Management

Reported finances

Revenue
$131,307
Expenses
$87,289
Assets
$1,223,846
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JEFF JOHNSTON (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • JEFF JOHNSTON (PRESIDENT)
  • MARC FULLER (TREASURER)
  • DAVE FREEHAUF (SECRETARY)

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

The deer lake association (dla) is an all volunteer organization serving as steward for deer lake, a public water body owned by the people of Minnesota. Dla is organized primarily to conserve and improve deer lake quality. To achieve this mission, dla implements water quality and other initiatives for and with the broader deer lake community - including all who use deer lake, depend on deer lake, or whose actions affect deer lake. Dla also builds community by providing related charitable service, educational and social activities for our members and surrounding area residents.

What it reported doing in 2025

Water quality testing - from may through september, the deer lake association performs secchi disk readings and collects lake water samples monthly from six locations on deer lake, then transports those samples to a professional lab for testing and measurement. The lab identifies and measure phosphorus and other nutrients that drive water clarity, and reports total phosphorus, chlorophyll, and water clarity over time. This information enables dla to create and implement a water quality improvement action plan and determine whether the plan is working.

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 99% 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

STRONG - 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.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 71
  • Transparency & Controls: 86
  • Accountability: 88
  • Sustainability: 83
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 62.3%; rating input score 62
  • Program expense ratio: 77.3%; rating input score 77
  • Fundraising efficiency: $1,230.7 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 98; 98th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 71
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: 33.5%; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 14.02; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 13.6% per year; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.3% per year; rating input score 100; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 14.5% per year; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 62.3% of revenue deployed · 77.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $67K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 20 of 20 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2020 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.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.