Eel River Watershed Improvement Group

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
911881974
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Fortuna, CA, USA
Phone
7076826262
Rating
81
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Fisheries Resources

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,705,997
Expenses
$1,715,845
Assets
$85,970
Liabilities
$34,552

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • LINDA SHERBY (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • MELISSA KOBETSKY (Director)
  • MEL KREB (Director)
  • SANDRA HUNT-VON ARB (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 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Organize and complete various watershed improvement projects

What it reported doing in 2024

The eel river watershed improvement group (erwig) activities for the fiscal year included the following: organized and implemented restoration, improvement, and erosion control projects in multiple regional watershed areas; andprovided the following educational activities:1. Creek days educational fair for local elementary students.2. Spawner survey workshops for local high schools.3. Classroom restoration demonstrations in all southern humboldt county elementary schools.4. Conducted public restoration workshops.5. Trained americorps and ccc members in restoration techniques and scientifice sampling methods.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 99% 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

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 and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 86
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 64
  • Sustainability: 29
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 97.2%; rating input score 97
  • Program expense ratio: 96.6%; rating input score 97
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 1 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 14
    • 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: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -0.6%; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.05; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.4; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 6.3% per year; rating input score 100; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6.5% per year; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 2.1% per year; rating input score 100; 26th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 97.2% of revenue deployed · 96.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 1 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.7M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 12 people listed
  • Consistency: 22 of 22 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 6 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 34/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 3/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 19/100.