Great Lakes Stewardship Initiative

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
823689165
IRS 990 coverage
2018–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Lowell, MI, USA
Phone
6162098623
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Natural Resources Conservation and Protection

Reported finances

Revenue
$585,415
Expenses
$510,850
Assets
$352,200
Liabilities
$11,397

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

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Caleb Carlton (Executive Director)
  • Ethan Lowenstein (President)
  • Gregory Smith (Vice President)
  • Clayton Pelon (President to Trustee)

Highest reported compensation

  • Caleb Carlton (Executive Director): $90,000 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

GLSI is a network of regional service hubs that develop knowledgeable and active stewards of the Great Lakes region through place-based education and explorations in local communities. GLSIs model for teaching and learning results in vibrant, hands-on experiences that increase student achievement.

What it reported doing in 2024

GLSI provides programmatic services and technical assistance to schools, school districts, community organizations, and other partners via its central organization and its network of six regional hubs. In 2024-25, GLSI provided educators with professional development, implementation support, and technical assistance in place-based teaching and learning. GLSI also continued development and delivery of virtual programs of professional development and project support using GLSIs model of Place-Based Stewardship Education and the associated Place-Based Education Institute. In this fiscal year, the GLSI began to scale its programs and services to teachers and community partners throughout Michigan and in the broader Great Lakes region. Hubs similarly supported educators in their regions with professional development and implementation support, using a predominantly face-to-face model.

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 85% 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 - 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 fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 70
  • Transparency & Controls: 72
  • Accountability: 79
  • Sustainability: 49
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 70.4%; rating input score 70
  • Program expense ratio: 80.6%; rating input score 81
  • Fundraising efficiency: $9.97 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 76.9%; rating input score 77; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 63.4%; rating input score 63; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • 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: 12.7%; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.69; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 17.6%; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 5.1% per year; rating input score 100; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5% per year; rating input score 100; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -5.1% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 70.4% of revenue deployed · 80.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $412K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $90K · 13 people listed
  • Consistency: 26 of 29 current checks pass · 3 findings to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2018 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 2 filed related-organization links
  • 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: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 38/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 31/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule G fundraiser detail did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 18/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 57/100.