Lake County Cooperative Weed Management Area

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
300519872
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Lakeview, OR, USA
Phone
5412190537
Rating
82
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Educational Services and Schools - Other

Reported finances

Revenue
$970,402
Expenses
$1,154,991
Assets
$36,398
Liabilities
$1,775

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

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CRAIG FOSTER (PRESIDENT)
  • TRAVIS ERICKSON (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • JASON JAEGER (EMPLOYEE): $61,425 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To educate and to assist local private landowners in controlling noxious weeds.

What it reported doing in 2024

For the past 17 years the lake county cwma has worked with local government agencies to control noxious weeds within lake county, these agencies include the blm, usfs, oda, odfw, among others. Weed control in 2024 was done manually, mechanically and with herbicide application. There were many noxious weed species controlled during this period, but control predominately consisted of perennial pepperweed, russian knapweed, dyers woad, scotch thistle, and medusahead rye. The three major projects that were done this year were with the united states forest service, united states fish and wildlife service, and the Oregon department of agriculture. In conjunction with the united states forest service the lake county cwma was able to treat 4,012 acres of noxious weeds on federal land for a cost of $842,632.23. Working with the united states fish and wildlife service the lake county cwma was able to treat approximately 1,117 acres of noxious weeds costing a total of $95,000. The third program was our lake county dyers woad project that cost a total of $44,355 and treated 521 acres. This project was funded by the Oregon department of agriculture.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 100% 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: 89
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 63
  • Sustainability: 18
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 99.6%; rating input score 100
  • 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: 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: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -19%; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.03; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.05; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5.3%; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 10% per year; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 9.7% per year; rating input score 100; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4.1% per year; rating input score 100; 35th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 99.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 1 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $61K · 13 people listed
  • Consistency: 24 of 24 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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: 6 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 10/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 2/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 52/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 52/100.