Lee County Economic Development Group
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 043605260
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2012–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Aug 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Montrose, IA, United States
- Phone
- 319-463-9030
- Rating
- 78
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Urban, Community Economic Development
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $427,825
- Expenses
- $756,824
- Assets
- $687,828
- Liabilities
- $62,028
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
25 people listed
Highest reported compensation
- EMILY BENJAMIN (CHIEF EXECUT): $133,702 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Lee County EDG helps shape policies and programs explicitly directed at improving the business climate through specific efforts in business retention and expansion, workforce development, marketing, and new business attraction. A cohesive strategy that bridges our communities and industries, empowering us to address shared challenged and leverage new opportunities _Connect Lee County is a collaborative effort spearheaded and facilitated by Lee County EDG_ Under the People pillar** , we’re focused on building a skilled workforce, attracting talent, and supporting entrepreneurs. Grow Lee leads this effort with programs from elementary STEM to adult upskilling through the Industrial Technology Center. A Talent Hub will connect employers to training, while the Community Concierge helps new residents settle in. We’re relaunching DreamBuilder and creating a startup fund by 2027. The Career...
What it reported doing in 2024
The primary purpose of the corporation is to encourage economic development and expansion in lee county, Iowa by marketing and promoting the geographic area to businesses and industry.
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 - 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: 77
- Transparency & Controls: 92
- Accountability: 69
- Sustainability: 18
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
- Program expense ratio: 61.2%; rating input score 61
- Fundraising efficiency: $2.3 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- 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: -76.9%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.91; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.09; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 17.7%; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 7.8% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 6.4% per year; rating input score 100; 59th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 7% per year; rating input score 100; 56th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 2 programs and campaigns described on the official site
- Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 61.2% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 24 of 24 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $463K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $134K · 25 people listed
- Consistency: 28 of 28 current checks pass
- Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
- Filing history: 12 filing years from 2012 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
- Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
- 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 7 not reported.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 10/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 3/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 38/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 22/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 27/100.