Mill Creek Alliance

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
311465290
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Reading, OH, USA
Phone
5135638800
Rating
82
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Alliance/Advocacy Organizations

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,422,970
Expenses
$1,327,895
Assets
$816,493
Liabilities
$15,302

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

Leadership & pay

22 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DAVID SCHMITT (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • DAVID SCHMITT (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $88,038 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Improves mill creek & its watershed through stream restoration, greenway construction, environmental education, public recreation & water quality monitoring. Has obtained millions in state & federal grants to support this

What it reported doing in 2024

Improve the mill creek: a)wetland, floodplain, and streambank restoration b)lowhead dam mitigation; c) multi-use trail construction; d) paddler stream access; e) water quality monitoring in 60+ locations; f) public reports on the state of the mill creek; g) assistance for local governments, citizen groups & urban neighborhoods to plan & fund creek improvements & public uses

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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

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 fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 78
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 81
  • Sustainability: 47
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 79.5%; rating input score 79
  • Program expense ratio: 85.1%; rating input score 85
  • Fundraising efficiency: $17.05 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings

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: 95.5%; rating input score 95; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 6.7%; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.61; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 6.6%; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 14.1% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 13.6% per year; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 14.5% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 79.5% of revenue deployed · 85.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 21 of 22 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $1.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $88K · 22 people listed
  • Consistency: 28 of 28 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2010 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.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 54/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 54/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 28/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 48/100.