Partners for Clean Streams

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
203463367
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2011
Location
Perrysburg, OH, USA
Phone
4198740727
Rating
82
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Water Resource, Wetlands Conservation and Management

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$539,752
Expenses
$527,653
Assets
$175,243
Liabilities
$88,141

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • BOB NEUBERT (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • JESSE STOCK (EXECUTIVE DI): $41,825 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Partners for clean streams strives for abundant open space and a high quality natural environment; adequate flood water storage capacities and flourishing wildlife; stakeholders who take local ownership in their resources; and rivers, streams and lakes that are clean, clear and safe.

What it reported doing in 2024

Partners for clean streams (pcs) continued to support the maumee area of concern (aoc) advisory committee activities through a grant from the Ohio epa. We planned and organized meetings, committees, and activities to facilitate collaboration and progress. Pcs maintained a sophisticated online database and decision-making tool (dmds), while also updating aoc social media, newsletters, and our website to keep stakeholders informed. Additionally, pcs collaborated with multiple partners to develop potential restoration projects in the maumee aoc and provided guidance on restoration efforts in the northwest Ohio region.

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. Program spending has declined or grown slowly and revenue has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 88
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 88
  • Sustainability: 32
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 90.1%; rating input score 90
  • Program expense ratio: 92.2%; rating input score 92
  • Fundraising efficiency: $25.88 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 65; 65th 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 71
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: 2.2%; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.33; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.5; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 7.9%; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -6.4% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -8.1% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -4.5% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 90.1% of revenue deployed · 92.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $486K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $42K · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 23 of 23 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: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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 — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 43/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 16/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 16/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 44/100.