Friends of Lower Muskingum River

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
421554146
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Marietta, OH, USA
Phone
7403744170
Rating
68
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Water Resource, Wetlands Conservation and Management

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$13,309
Expenses
$4,540
Assets
$918,006
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Matt Halfhill (Vice President)
  • Katy Lustofin (President)

People named in this filing

  • Rick Mayle (Board Member)
  • Sam Powell (Board Member)
  • Ty Williams (Board Member)

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

Improve and conserve the environment in the lower Muskingum River watershed through educational outreach, environmental monitoring, and protection of natural areas through land acquisition or conservation easements.

What it reported doing in 2024

Environmental monitoring and protection of natural areas: Annual monitoring of easement properties to insure compliance with easement terms. Maintenance of pollinator habitat and riparian buffer including mowing, removing invasive species, trimming trees, and planting native species.

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 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 - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. 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: 51
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 76
  • Sustainability: 87
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 56.4%; rating input score 56
  • Program expense ratio: 60.6%; rating input score 61
  • 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 43
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: 65.9%; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 202.2; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -26.1% per year; rating input score 0; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -11.9% per year; rating input score 0; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 2.6% per year; rating input score 100; 55th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 56.4% of revenue deployed · 60.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $3K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 39 of 39 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2010 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 56/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.