Impact Preservation Corporation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
371581358
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Rice Lake, WI, USA
Phone
7154341717
Rating
44
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$80,275
Expenses
$21,360
Assets
$3,024,805
Liabilities
$1,234,397

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

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • BRETT GERBER (PRESIDENT/CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • BRETT GERBER (PRESIDENT/CEO): $673,379 total reported compensation
  • CAROLINE LOYAS (DIRECTOR): $154,557 total reported compensation
  • TERRA PAWLIUK-MCGIFFIN (SECRETARY/TREASURER): $151,153 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Provide rural development loans

What it reported doing in 2024

Impact preservation corporation (the corporation) administers a loan program of rural development. The program uses loan funds received from rural development, along with other matching funds, to make loans to ultimate recipients. Relending programs will normally establish revolving funds so that income from loans made to ultimate recipients, in excess of necessary operating expenses and debt payments, will be used to make additional loans to ultimate recipients. At the end of 2024, the organization had ten loans receivable totaling $2,143,713.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 98% 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 few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 31
  • Transparency & Controls: 60
  • Accountability: 47
  • Sustainability: 74
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 17.2%; rating input score 17
  • Program expense ratio: 64.9%; rating input score 65
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 33.3%; rating input score 33; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 73.4%; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 141.61; rating input score 96; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.41; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 976.9%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -7.2% per year; rating input score 0; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -2.1% per year; rating input score 0; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -0% per year; rating input score 0; 40th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 17.2% of revenue deployed · 64.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 1 of 3 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $14K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $673K · 3 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 16 of 16 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2014 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Related organizations: 11 filed related-organization links
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 17/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 33/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 1/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 11/100.